Grant v Grant; Grant v Grant (No. 3) [2021] NSWSC 1

Grant v Grant; Grant v Grant (No. 3) [2021] NSWSC 1

Indemnity costs were ordered against Nerez Grant (in both proceedings) and Kashaya Williams (in the estate recovery proceedings) because their misconduct included fabricating evidence, propounding false defences, and grossly prolonging litigation, making this case analogous to Degmam Pty Ltd (in liq) v Wright (No. 2) rather than Harrison v Schipp, which requires more than unconscionable conduct to depart from ordinary costs.

Parties
Representative of the Estate of Alan Grant; Executor of Gwynneth Grant's Estate: Seth Grant; First Defendant in Estate Recovery Proceedings; Plaintiff in Family Provision Proceedings: Nerez Grant; Second Defendant in Estate Recovery Proceedings: Kashaya Grant (Williams)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Estate Recovery Proceedings; Family Provision Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Indemnity costs orders granted.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Estate Recovery, Family Provision, Misconduct in Litigation
Equity Costs Indemnity Costs Estate Recovery Family Provision Misconduct in Litigation

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seth Grant

Representative of the Estate of Alan Grant; Executor of Gwynneth Grant's Estate

Nerez Grant

First Defendant in Estate Recovery Proceedings; Plaintiff in Family Provision Proceedings

Kashaya Grant (Williams)

Second Defendant in Estate Recovery Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Estate Recovery Proceedings; Family Provision Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded due to significant misconduct by unsuccessful parties

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were ordered against Nerez Grant (in both proceedings) and Kashaya Williams (in the estate recovery proceedings) because their misconduct included fabricating evidence, propounding false defences, and grossly prolonging litigation, making this case analogous to Degmam Pty Ltd (in liq) v Wright (No. 2) rather than Harrison v Schipp, which requires more than unconscionable conduct to depart from ordinary costs.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs orders granted.

Orders

  • In the estate recovery proceedings, the defendants are ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff, Seth Grant, as the representative of the estate of the late Alan Grant on the indemnity basis.
  • In the family provision proceedings, the plaintiff (Nerez Grant) is ordered to pay the costs of the estate of the late Gwynneth Grant on the indemnity basis.