Maria Bechara v Theodors Haratsaris (on costs) [2013] NSWSC 606

Maria Bechara v Theodors Haratsaris (on costs) [2013] NSWSC 606

The defendants took a stance in the proceedings that they must have known was false, including false claims by Mr Haratsaris about lack of knowledge of Ms Bechara's bill of costs, evidence from Mrs Haratsaris designed to support that falsehood, and a dishonest attempt to portray the transfer to the trust as made pursuant to an obligation to the first defendant's mother. That dishonest evidence infused the defence of the proceedings and, without it, the proceedings likely could not have been contested. This conduct in the proceedings warranted an order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs / Application for Indemnity Costs After the Plaintiff Obtained Declarations That Transfers Were Void
Outcome
The plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was allowed.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'fraudulent Conveyances' 'conduct of Proceedings' 'dishonest Evidence']
['costs' 'equity'] ['indemnity Costs' 'fraudulent Conveyances' 'conduct of Proceedings' 'dishonest Evidence']

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 / Application for Indemnity Costs After the Plaintiff Obtained Declarations That Transfers Were Void

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and second defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis rather than the usual basis." "Whether the defendants' conduct in the proceedings, including allegedly false defences and dishonest evidence, warranted indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants took a stance in the proceedings that they must have known was false, including false claims by Mr Haratsaris about lack of knowledge of Ms Bechara's bill of costs, evidence from Mrs Haratsaris designed to support that falsehood, and a dishonest attempt to portray the transfer to the trust as made pursuant to an obligation to the first defendant's mother. That dishonest evidence infused the defence of the proceedings and, without it, the proceedings likely could not have been contested. This conduct in the proceedings warranted an order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was allowed.

Orders

  • ["The first and second defendants pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis."]