Gemma Constantinidis v Maxwell William Prentice in his capacity as trustee for the Estate of George Constantinidis (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 160

Gemma Constantinidis v Maxwell William Prentice in his capacity as trustee for the Estate of George Constantinidis (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 160

Given the modest amount of costs, the plaintiff's history of repeated litigation and non-compliance, and the likely protracted and disproportionate nature of any assessment, gross sum costs orders of $10,000 plus GST should be made in favour of the fifth and seventh defendants. The proceedings against the tenth and twelfth defendants should be dismissed due to failure to properly serve and name those defendants and non-compliance with court orders.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gemma Constantinidis; First Defendant: Maxwell William Prentice in his capacity as trustee for the Estate of George Constantinidis; Second Defendant: Maxwell William Prentice, David Henry Sampson, Mitchel Warren Ball and Sampson Prentice Ball trading as BPS Recovery; Third Defendant: David Henry Sampson; Fourth Defendant: Nicole Greentree; Fifth Defendant: Jayne Edwards; Sixth Defendant: Jayne Edwards Realty Pty Ltd; Seventh Defendant: Michael Curtis; Eighth Defendant: Ray White Realty Hurstville Pty Ltd; Ninth Defendant: Security guard employed by Security One Pty Ltd in attendance at auction of matrimonial home on 7 November 2015; Tenth Defendant: Security One Pty Ltd; Eleventh Defendant: Auctioneer in attendance at auction of matrimonial home on 7 November 2015; Twelfth Defendant: AAA Recycling; Thirteenth Defendant: Dajana Malsernic; Fourteenth Defendant: Dominque Robinson; Fifteenth Defendant: Polczynski Robinson Lawyers; Sixteenth Defendant: Antonios Kontellis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Gross sum costs orders made in favour of fifth and seventh defendants; proceedings dismissed against tenth and twelfth defendants.
Legal Topics
Costs, Gross Sum Costs Order, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Party/party Costs, Self Represented Litigant
Civil Procedure Costs Gross Sum Costs Order Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Party/party Costs Self Represented Litigant

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gemma Constantinidis

Plaintiff

Maxwell William Prentice in his capacity as trustee for the Estate of George Constantinidis

First Defendant

Maxwell William Prentice, David Henry Sampson, Mitchel Warren Ball and Sampson Prentice Ball trading as BPS Recovery

Second Defendant

David Henry Sampson

Third Defendant

Nicole Greentree

Fourth Defendant

Jayne Edwards

Fifth Defendant

Jayne Edwards Realty Pty Ltd

Sixth Defendant

Michael Curtis

Seventh Defendant

Ray White Realty Hurstville Pty Ltd

Eighth Defendant

Security guard employed by Security One Pty Ltd in attendance at auction of matrimonial home on 7 November 2015

Ninth Defendant

Security One Pty Ltd

Tenth Defendant

Auctioneer in attendance at auction of matrimonial home on 7 November 2015

Eleventh Defendant

AAA Recycling

Twelfth Defendant

Dajana Malsernic

Thirteenth Defendant

Dominque Robinson

Fourteenth Defendant

Polczynski Robinson Lawyers

Fifteenth Defendant

Antonios Kontellis

Sixteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a gross sum costs order should be made in favour of the fifth and seventh defendants
  2. 2 Whether proceedings against the tenth and twelfth defendants should be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and rules

Ratio Decidendi

Given the modest amount of costs, the plaintiff's history of repeated litigation and non-compliance, and the likely protracted and disproportionate nature of any assessment, gross sum costs orders of $10,000 plus GST should be made in favour of the fifth and seventh defendants. The proceedings against the tenth and twelfth defendants should be dismissed due to failure to properly serve and name those defendants and non-compliance with court orders.

Court Disposition

Gross sum costs orders made in favour of fifth and seventh defendants; proceedings dismissed against tenth and twelfth defendants.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the fifth defendant's costs of $10,000.00 plus GST.
  • Plaintiff to pay the seventh defendant's costs of $10,000.00 plus GST.