Sarant v Sarant (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1897

Sarant v Sarant (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1897

The overall justice of the case required George to bear his own costs and pay only $40,000 on account of the Defendants' costs. George was largely successful in obtaining family provision and the Cross-Claim was dismissed. Maria-Lyn and Melissa were sole executors and beneficiaries, defended the proceedings in their own interests, advanced an unsuccessful all-or-nothing position, and conducted the defence unreasonably and over-vigorously. However, because George did not receive all that he sought and the estate's substantial asset was the Bronte property, it was fair that he contribute part of their costs rather than pay all of them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs in Family Provision Proceedings and Cross Claim / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment and Orders
Outcome
No order was made as to George's costs; George was ordered to pay $40,000 on account of the Defendants' costs; otherwise no order was made as to the Defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'costs Discretion' 'executor Beneficiaries Defending Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs Out of Estate' 'cross Claim for Trustees for Sale']
['succession' 'costs' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'costs Discretion' 'executor Beneficiaries Defending Proceedings' 'indemnity Costs Out of Estate' 'cross Claim for Trustees for Sale']

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

Costs in Family Provision Proceedings and Cross Claim / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant should bear his own costs of the proceedings.' "Whether the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant should pay all, some, or none of the Defendants/Cross-Claimants' costs." 'Whether the Defendants/Cross-Claimants should bear their own costs because they defended the family provision claim and prosecuted the Cross-Claim in their own interests and unsuccessfully.' 'How the general costs principles in family provision proceedings should be applied in the overall justice of the case.']

Ratio Decidendi

The overall justice of the case required George to bear his own costs and pay only $40,000 on account of the Defendants' costs. George was largely successful in obtaining family provision and the Cross-Claim was dismissed. Maria-Lyn and Melissa were sole executors and beneficiaries, defended the proceedings in their own interests, advanced an unsuccessful all-or-nothing position, and conducted the defence unreasonably and over-vigorously. However, because George did not receive all that he sought and the estate's substantial asset was the Bronte property, it was fair that he contribute part of their costs rather than pay all of them.

Court Disposition

No order was made as to George's costs; George was ordered to pay $40,000 on account of the Defendants' costs; otherwise no order was made as to the Defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ["Makes no order as to the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant's costs to the intent that he will bear his own costs of the proceedings." "Orders the Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to pay $40,000 on account of the Defendants/Cross-Claimants' costs; otherwise, makes no order as to their costs to the intent that they are to bear...