Bruce v Greentree (No 2)

The proceedings in Bruce v Greentree (No 2) involved two plaintiffs seeking a family provision order against the estate of a deceased person. The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the plaintiffs, considering the estate's virtual non-existence. The High Court of Australia was called upon to decide on the issue of costs in this unsuccessful claim.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be departed from and whether indemnity costs should be ordered in light of the overall justice of the case. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the value of the estate and the fact that a designating order was not made.

In its reasoning, the court held that the general rule of costs following the event should be adhered to, except in cases where there are compelling reasons to depart from it. The court recognised that the plaintiffs' claim was largely unsuccessful, and the estate's value was minimal. Given these factors, the court deemed it appropriate to order costs in the usual way. The court also considered the principle of overall justice in the case and concluded that it was not necessary to order indemnity costs in this instance.

The court's decision resulted in the plaintiffs being ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, in accordance with the general rule. The court found that there were no compelling reasons to depart from the general rule, and ordering indemnity costs would not be just and equitable in the circumstances.