Bosschieter v Howitt [2025] NSWSC 70

Bosschieter v Howitt [2025] NSWSC 70

The plaintiff achieved only limited success (restoration to pre-proceeding position) and should not receive a costs order in her favour. Given the plaintiff wholly lost on the Cross-Claim, she should pay the defendant’s/cross-claimant’s costs of the Cross-Claim. Each party should bear their own costs of the Summons. Calderbank offers did not alter this outcome as neither party obtained a result more favourable than their settlement correspondence.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Justine Bosschieter; Defendant/cross Claimant: David Phillip Howitt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate and Family Provision Proceedings / Post Trial – Consequential Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs judgment
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Calderbank Offers, Succession, Undue Influence, Unconscionable Conduct, Family Provision Applications
Equity Probate Family Provision Costs Costs Orders Calderbank Offers Succession Undue Influence +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justine Bosschieter

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

David Phillip Howitt

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Probate and Family Provision Proceedings / Post Trial – Consequential Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the plaintiff in family provision proceedings where partial success is achieved
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of the Cross-Claim
  3. 3 Effect of parties' Calderbank offers on costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff achieved only limited success (restoration to pre-proceeding position) and should not receive a costs order in her favour. Given the plaintiff wholly lost on the Cross-Claim, she should pay the defendant’s/cross-claimant’s costs of the Cross-Claim. Each party should bear their own costs of the Summons. Calderbank offers did not alter this outcome as neither party obtained a result more favourable than their settlement correspondence.

Court Disposition

Costs judgment

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the Summons; each party bears their own costs.
  • Plaintiff/cross-defendant, Justine Bosschieter, shall pay defendant/cross-claimant's costs of the Cross-Claim.