Rogic v Samaan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1573

Rogic v Samaan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1573

Radan was ordered to pay the defendants' costs because he was unsuccessful, the case was not borderline, the proceedings were primarily conducted as an equity claim rather than solely as a family provision claim, he failed to make any settlement offer despite encouragement to do so, he maintained an ambit claim while only advancing more modest alternatives at the hearing, and the costs order would not so adversely affect his financial position as to justify no order. However, the defendants' recoverable costs were capped because aspects of the solicitor's costs were not reasonably recoverable from Radan and a party/party figure should be fixed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs in Equity Family Provision List Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Costs After Principal Judgment Dismissing the Plaintiff's Estoppel and Family Provision Claims
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' capped recoverable costs.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'costs Capping' 'family Provision Proceedings' 'settlement Offers' 'costs Budgets']
['costs' 'family Provision' 'equity'] ['party/party Costs' 'costs Capping' 'family Provision Proceedings' 'settlement Offers' 'costs Budgets']

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 Equity Family Provision List Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Costs After Principal Judgment Dismissing the Plaintiff's Estoppel and Family Provision Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the unsuccessful plaintiff should pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings." "Whether the defendants' recoverable costs should be capped." "Whether the plaintiff's failure to make a settlement offer was relevant to costs." 'Whether the overall justice of the case justified departure from costs following the event in family provision proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Radan was ordered to pay the defendants' costs because he was unsuccessful, the case was not borderline, the proceedings were primarily conducted as an equity claim rather than solely as a family provision claim, he failed to make any settlement offer despite encouragement to do so, he maintained an ambit claim while only advancing more modest alternatives at the hearing, and the costs order would not so adversely affect his financial position as to justify no order. However, the defendants' recoverable costs were capped because aspects of the solicitor's costs were not reasonably recoverable from Radan and a party/party figure should be fixed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' capped recoverable costs.

Orders

  • ["Order that the defendants' recoverable costs in the proceedings be limited to $38,200 (inclusive of GST) in relation to solicitors' costs and $33,660 (inclusive of GST) in relation to counsel's fees." 'Order that the defendants be entitled to their costs from the estate on an indemnity basis, but on the basis that...