Christopherson v Wright; Christopherson v Wright [2024] NSWSC 1327

Christopherson v Wright; Christopherson v Wright [2024] NSWSC 1327

Costs should generally follow the event in family provision proceedings; Craig and Pamela’s failure in their claims means they bear costs. No basis for further or substantive orders beyond principal judgment was shown; the slip rule did not apply as alleged errors reflected the evidence.

Parties
Plaintiff: Shane Christopherson; Defendant: Sharon Ann Wright; First Plaintiff: Craig Anthony Christopherson; Second Plaintiff: Pamela Jane Burne; First Defendant: Sharon Ann Wright; Second Defendant: Shane Christopherson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Family Provision/costs / Final Orders and Costs
Outcome
Orders made; successful plaintiff to receive provision; costs distributed according to outcome; Craig and Pamela's further orders refused.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Costs, Testator's Family Maintenance, Slip Rule
Equity Succession Law Family Provision Costs Testator's Family Maintenance Slip Rule

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Christopherson

Plaintiff

Sharon Ann Wright

Defendant

Craig Anthony Christopherson

First Plaintiff

Pamela Jane Burne

Second Plaintiff

Sharon Ann Wright

First Defendant

Shane Christopherson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Family Provision/costs / Final Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs orders in family provision proceedings where parties had differing success
  2. 2 Entitlement to further orders under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 66 after principal judgment
  3. 3 Application of slip rule under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.17

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should generally follow the event in family provision proceedings; Craig and Pamela’s failure in their claims means they bear costs. No basis for further or substantive orders beyond principal judgment was shown; the slip rule did not apply as alleged errors reflected the evidence.

Court Disposition

Orders made; successful plaintiff to receive provision; costs distributed according to outcome; Craig and Pamela's further orders refused.

Orders

  • Provision to be made for the plaintiff (Shane Christopherson) out of the Deceased's estate in the amount of $300,000.
  • Plaintiff's (Shane Christopherson) costs be paid out of the Deceased's estate on the ordinary basis.