Bruce v Greentree (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1636

Bruce v Greentree (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1636

The Plaintiffs' family provision claims had been dismissed and, under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the usual consequence was that the unsuccessful Plaintiffs should pay the successful Defendant's costs unless a discretionary reason justified another order. The Defendant's incomplete disclosure, the asserted uncertainty about the estate and notional estate, the Plaintiffs' settlement offer, and the first Plaintiff's financial circumstances did not justify departure from the usual costs rule. The offers relied on by the Defendant did not justify indemnity costs, particularly because some contained no real compromise, the final...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs in Dismissed Family Provision Proceedings / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claims for a Family Provision Order
Outcome
The Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Defendant's costs, calculated on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'family Provision Proceedings' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'notional Estate']
['civil Procedure' 'succession' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'family Provision Proceedings' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offers' 'offers of Compromise' 'notional Estate']

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

Procedural Posture

Costs in Dismissed Family Provision Proceedings / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Claims for a Family Provision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event after dismissal of the Plaintiffs' family provision claims." "Whether the Plaintiffs should pay the Defendant's costs on the ordinary basis." 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered by reason of offers of compromise or Calderbank offers.' "Whether the Defendant's incomplete disclosure of financial and material circumstances or the first Plaintiff's financial circumstances justified no order as to costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs' family provision claims had been dismissed and, under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the usual consequence was that the unsuccessful Plaintiffs should pay the successful Defendant's costs unless a discretionary reason justified another order. The Defendant's incomplete disclosure, the asserted uncertainty about the estate and notional estate, the Plaintiffs' settlement offer, and the first Plaintiff's financial circumstances did not justify departure from the usual costs rule. The offers relied on by the Defendant did not justify indemnity costs, particularly because some contained no real compromise, the final...

Court Disposition

The Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the Defendant's costs, calculated on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ["Order the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendant's costs, calculated on the ordinary basis."]