The Estate of Helen Manning Shave [2012] NSWSC 1459

The Estate of Helen Manning Shave [2012] NSWSC 1459

The 8 May 2009 offer was not unreasonable for Mr Brown to reject given the indeterminate future administration of the estate. For the hearing on 30 and 31 October 2012, the beneficiaries had greater success on the more substantial reimbursement issue, while Mr Brown had some success on commission and on parts of the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Probate List; Costs in Estate Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs Following Judgment Delivered on 23 November 2012
Outcome
Accounts passed; reimbursement, commission, costs and distribution adjustment orders made.
Legal Topics
['costs Where Each Party Partly Succeeded' 'pre Proceedings Settlement Offer' 'passing Estate Accounts' 'executor Reimbursement and Commission' 'distribution Adjustment Between Beneficiaries']
['probate and Succession' 'costs'] ['costs Where Each Party Partly Succeeded' 'pre Proceedings Settlement Offer' 'passing Estate Accounts' 'executor Reimbursement and Commission' 'distribution Adjustment Between Beneficiaries']

Source-derived case record

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

Equity Division Probate List; Costs in Estate Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs Following Judgment Delivered on 23 November 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 8 May 2009 settlement offer was unreasonable for Mr Brown not to accept.' 'What costs orders should be made for the hearing on 30 and 31 October 2012 where the parties had mixed success.' 'Whether costs should be divided by separate issues or adjusted by an overall percentage.' 'How the moderated costs should be treated in the final distribution of the estate to avoid imbalance between beneficiaries.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 8 May 2009 offer was not unreasonable for Mr Brown to reject given the indeterminate future administration of the estate. For the hearing on 30 and 31 October 2012, the beneficiaries had greater success on the more substantial reimbursement issue, while Mr Brown had some success on commission and on parts of the reimbursement dispute. A single percentage costs order fairly reflected that mixed outcome, so Mr Brown was ordered to pay 60 percent of the first plaintiff's and defendant's costs of and incidental to that hearing.

Court Disposition

Accounts passed; reimbursement, commission, costs and distribution adjustment orders made.

Orders

  • ['Order that the accounts and the supplementary accounts in the estate covering the period from 15 April 2008 to 31 August 2012 be passed.' 'Order that the second plaintiff reimburse the estate for the sum of $32,843.78 being sixty-five per cent of the moderated costs allowed out of the estate to the first...