Petrovski v Nasev; The Estate of Janakievska (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1474

Petrovski v Nasev; The Estate of Janakievska (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1474

Having regard to the whole of the evidence, the circumstances of the probate proceedings, and the findings in the substantive judgment, the Defendant conducted the case in substance to establish himself as a beneficiary entitled to a significant share of the estate, while the Plaintiffs successfully defended all aspects of his Cross-Claim and established findings including undue influence. Those factors justified ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis, with any difference between ordinary and indemnity costs to be paid from the deceased's estate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Probate Proceedings Costs Determination / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs After Substantive Probate Judgment
Outcome
The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis, with any difference between ordinary costs and indemnity costs of the Plaintiffs to be paid out of the deceased's estate.
Legal Topics
['costs in Probate Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs From Estate' 'solemn Form Probate' 'cross Claim Propounding Later Will']
['probate' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Probate Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs From Estate' 'solemn Form Probate' 'cross Claim Propounding Later Will']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Probate Proceedings Costs Determination / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs After Substantive Probate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings calculated on the ordinary basis." 'Whether there should instead be no order as to costs, or whether probate costs principles justified a different order involving the estate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the whole of the evidence, the circumstances of the probate proceedings, and the findings in the substantive judgment, the Defendant conducted the case in substance to establish himself as a beneficiary entitled to a significant share of the estate, while the Plaintiffs successfully defended all aspects of his Cross-Claim and established findings including undue influence. Those factors justified ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis, with any difference between ordinary and indemnity costs to be paid from the deceased's estate.

Court Disposition

The Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiffs' costs on the ordinary basis, with any difference between ordinary costs and indemnity costs of the Plaintiffs to be paid out of the deceased's estate.

Orders

  • ["The Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings, such costs to be calculated on the ordinary basis." 'Order that any difference between ordinary costs and indemnity costs of the Plaintiffs be paid out of the estate of the deceased.']