Chu v Ngar (No 2)

In the case of Chu v Ngar, the plaintiff, Chu, sought a family provision order against the estate of her deceased father, Ngar. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to an order for family provision as she had been dependent on her father for financial support throughout her life. The defendant, the executor of the estate, opposed the claim, arguing that the plaintiff had not been dependent on her father and that there were other factors that should be taken into account.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order and, if so, the amount of the order. The court also had to consider the question of costs, as the plaintiff was unsuccessful in her claim. The court noted that the plaintiff had not been present when the reasons for judgment were delivered, and that the defendant was prepared to bear her own costs of the proceedings. The court considered whether it was appropriate to make an order that there be no order as to the defendant's costs, so that the defendant would bear her own costs.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a family provision order. The court noted that the plaintiff had not been present when the reasons for judgment were delivered, and that the defendant was prepared to bear her own costs of the proceedings. The court considered that it was appropriate to make an order that there be no order as to the defendant's costs, so that the defendant would bear her own costs. The court also noted that it was not known whether the plaintiff sought any order for costs out of the estate or notional estate. The court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to make any application for costs by notice of motion filed by a specified date.

The court made an order that there be no order as to the defendant's costs to the intent that she will bear her own costs. The court also noted that the plaintiff had been a litigant in person at the hearing, and that she had been given an opportunity to make any application for costs despite her non-appearance.