29 Sept 2023
The applicant unreasonably refused readily available and adequate undertakings from respondent, had delayed filing substantive proceedings since November 2022, and therefore is not entitled to her costs; respondent is entitled to costs on a 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
21 Aug 2019
Summary judgment was appropriate because the defendant had no tenable defence; the administrators' mutual mistrust and repeated inability to implement agreements caused substantial delay and impaired proper administration of the estate, and under s 21 the expedient solution for beneficiaries was removal of both administrators and appointment of an independent solicitor (Vicki M. Ammundsen).
23 Mar 2018
The solicitor's undertaking was discharged and the applicant succeeded; indemnity costs were not justified because the respondent's case, while weak, was not vexatious, but an uplift of 20% on a 2B costs scale was appropriate for unreasonable delay after the court's 7 December 2017 minute; quantum to be fixed by the Registrar including all attendances up to and including the costs application.
23 Oct 2014
Probate in solemn form was granted because the executors swore belief that the document was the deceased's last will and would faithfully execute it, all relevant persons had opportunity to challenge or comment, testamentary capacity and undue influence were no longer pursued, beneficiaries recorded agreement supporting the grant, and non‑party legatees were unaffected.
30 May 2011
The s66 application was refused because the questions central to the requested directions (in particular whether payments were loans or gifts and the proper treatment/vesting of the Orange Finance investment) involve substantial disputed facts that cannot be resolved on a s66 directions application; accordingly the Court is limited to ratifying or refusing proposed trustee decisions and must decline to make substantive factual determinations in this proceeding; costs reserved.
18 Mar 2010
Because the plaintiff succeeded, the estate was reasonably large (about $800,000), and the plaintiff's costs were modest (about $15,000), it was fair and appropriate to order that the plaintiff's reasonable costs and disbursements be met by the defendants and paid out of the deceased's estate before distribution to residuary beneficiaries.
29 Sept 2009
Summary judgment was appropriate because the defendants lacked a viable defence; plaintiffs entitled to Category 2B costs fixed at $8,960 plus disbursements $640; the first defendant's conduct was unreasonable such that he must personally pay the plaintiffs' costs and the second defendant's costs ($4,641.80) and not be reimbursed from the estate; the draft Thistle Paddock deed specified is ordered.