Angius v Salier (No 3)

In Angius v Salier, the respondents sought indemnity costs from the deceased estate of the first respondent under the provisions of the Costs in the Supreme Court Act 1924 (Qld). The respondents were successful in their action, which was ultimately decided on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties. The appellants argued that the respondents' conduct in pursuing indemnity costs was unreasonable and should not be awarded. The court had to determine whether the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs, and if so, whether the costs were to be paid out of the deceased estate.

The court considered the appropriate criteria for indemnity costs, focusing on the conduct of the respondents. It examined whether the respondents' conduct was unreasonable and whether the appellants had any concerns about the respondents' capacity. The court found that the respondents' conduct was not unreasonable, but the appellants' concern about the respondents' capacity was valid. The court also assessed whether the respondents were entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate, considering the relevant statutory provisions.

The court concluded that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate. The court found that the respondents' conduct was not unreasonable, but the appellants' concern about the respondents' capacity was valid. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate, as the appellants' concern about the respondents' capacity was a valid concern. The court also found that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate, as the appellants' concern about the respondents' capacity was a valid concern.

The court dismissed the respondents' claim for indemnity costs from the deceased estate. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate, as the appellants' concern about the respondents' capacity was a valid concern. The court found that the appellants were not liable to pay any part of the respondents' costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court, and that the respondents were not entitled to indemnity costs from the deceased estate.