Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 3) [2002] FCA 1643

Rostirolla v Fiakos (No 3) [2002] FCA 1643

No order as to costs is appropriate because the action, though adversarial in form, was reasonable for the applicants to bring given the conduct of the deceased and their lack of knowledge; the analogy to the well-known exception to the costs rule in testamentary disputes is close enough to apply.

Parties
First Applicant: Dayna Rostirolla; Second Applicant: Peter Rostirolla; First Respondent: Joan Fiakos; Second Respondent: Royal & Sun Alliance Financial Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Order Following Unsuccessful Claim
Outcome
No order as to costs; applicants bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Trusts, Testamentary Trusts
Civil Procedure Costs Trusts Testamentary Trusts

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dayna Rostirolla

First Applicant

Peter Rostirolla

Second Applicant

Joan Fiakos

First Respondent

Royal & Sun Alliance Financial Services Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Order Following Unsuccessful Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriateness of costs order after claim regarding existence of trust failed.
  2. 2 Application of exception to general costs rule in trusts/wills disputes caused by deceased's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs is appropriate because the action, though adversarial in form, was reasonable for the applicants to bring given the conduct of the deceased and their lack of knowledge; the analogy to the well-known exception to the costs rule in testamentary disputes is close enough to apply.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; applicants bear their own costs.

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs.