Gray v Gray [2005] NSWCA 129

Gray v Gray [2005] NSWCA 129

The circumstances did not justify an order for indemnity costs against the appellant since guidelines for indemnity costs, as set out in precedent, were not met in trust and beneficiary litigation. No adjustment was warranted to the orders as to costs in the trial, as only minor claims were disallowed. Interest on costs should run from the date of the order due to the first respondent being out of pocket and likely delay in assessment.

Parties
Appellant: Robert John Charles Gray; First Respondent: Rollo Ventry Wakefield Gray; Second Respondent: Guardian Trust Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Orders Following Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders made as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Interest on Costs, Assessment of Costs, Trustee Entitlement to Indemnity
Equity Trusts Costs Indemnity Costs Interest on Costs Assessment of Costs Trustee Entitlement to Indemnity

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Charles Gray

Appellant

Rollo Ventry Wakefield Gray

First Respondent

Guardian Trust Australia Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Orders Following Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent should have its costs on the indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether the order for costs of the trial below should be varied
  3. 3 Whether there should be an order for interest on the order for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances did not justify an order for indemnity costs against the appellant since guidelines for indemnity costs, as set out in precedent, were not met in trust and beneficiary litigation. No adjustment was warranted to the orders as to costs in the trial, as only minor claims were disallowed. Interest on costs should run from the date of the order due to the first respondent being out of pocket and likely delay in assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders made as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • Order that the appeal be allowed in part by deleting orders 1(c), 1(d), 2(c) and 2(d) of the Orders in proceedings 114938 of 1999 made on 21 February 2003 and otherwise the appeal be dismissed.
  • Order that the appellant pay 90% of the first respondent's costs of the appeal.