Wardle v Wardle (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 1663

Wardle v Wardle (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 1663

Because the plaintiff's challenge to the property transfer benefited the estate and occupied slightly more than half the hearing, but the dispute also resembled an inter partes contest between siblings and the defendant had a strong family provision claim, the plaintiff should recover just under two-thirds of capped costs. The plaintiff's costs were capped at $120,000 to reflect proportionality, the need for economy and the shortened hearing. The defendant's costs were not capped, but Mr Pickering's recovery from the defendant was limited to $80,000 inclusive of counsel's fees and other disbursements pending any Law Society investigation because some costs were arguably occasioned by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs in Family Provision and Deceased Estate Proceedings / Second Judgment Dealing With Costs After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's costs capped at $120,000; defendant ordered to pay $75,000 of the plaintiff's costs; defendant ordered to pay a total of $150,000 in two tranches; defendant's solicitor restricted from recovering more than $80,000 inclusive of counsel's fees and other disbursements pending any Law Society investigation;...
Legal Topics
['costs Capping Orders' 'party/party Costs Payable Out of a Fund' 'further Provision Out of a Deceased Estate' 'referral of Solicitor Conduct to the NSW Law Society' 'time to Pay Legacy and Costs' 'interest on Unpaid Amounts']
['costs' 'family Provision' 'deceased Estates' 'equity'] ['costs Capping Orders' 'party/party Costs Payable Out of a Fund' 'further Provision Out of a Deceased Estate' 'referral of Solicitor Conduct to the NSW Law Society' 'time to Pay Legacy and Costs' 'interest on Unpaid Amounts']

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 Family Provision and Deceased Estate Proceedings / Second Judgment Dealing With Costs After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made as between the parties.' 'Whether costs-capping orders should be made.' 'Whether time to pay should be given.' "Whether any special orders should be made in relation to the defendant's costs because of the referral of Mr Pickering's conduct to the NSW Law Society."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff's challenge to the property transfer benefited the estate and occupied slightly more than half the hearing, but the dispute also resembled an inter partes contest between siblings and the defendant had a strong family provision claim, the plaintiff should recover just under two-thirds of capped costs. The plaintiff's costs were capped at $120,000 to reflect proportionality, the need for economy and the shortened hearing. The defendant's costs were not capped, but Mr Pickering's recovery from the defendant was limited to $80,000 inclusive of counsel's fees and other disbursements pending any Law Society investigation because some costs were arguably occasioned by...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's costs capped at $120,000; defendant ordered to pay $75,000 of the plaintiff's costs; defendant ordered to pay a total of $150,000 in two tranches; defendant's solicitor restricted from recovering more than $80,000 inclusive of counsel's fees and other disbursements pending any Law Society investigation;...

Orders

  • ["Order that the plaintiff's legal costs are capped in the maximum amount of $120,000." "Order the defendant to pay $75,000 (or 62.5%) of the plaintiff's legal costs." 'Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the total sum of $150,000, being the legacy of $75,000 ordered in the principal judgment and the sum of...