CT v JT - [2025] NSWSC 1304

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	CT v JT
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2025] NSWSC 1304
Hearing Date(s):	In chambers, on written submissions
Date of Orders:	5 November 2025
Decision Date:	5 November 2025
Jurisdiction:	Equity - Protective List
Before:	Lindsay J
Decision:	(1) ORDER that the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings, assessed on the ordinary basis, be paid: (a) as to 50%, out of the protected estate of the first defendant; and (b) as to 50%, by the second defendant. (2) ORDER that the costs of the first defendant (including the costs of each of her tutors) be paid out of the estate of the first defendant on the indemnity basis. (3) NOTE that no other orders for costs are made, with the intent that the second and third defendants bear their own costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION – Costs – Principles to be applied
Legislation Cited:	Succession Act 2006 NSW
Cases Cited:	CAC v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2014] NSWSC 1855 CAC v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 344 CCR v PS (No 2) (1986) 6 NSWLR 622 Holt v Protective Commissioner (1993) 31 NSWLR 227 Marion’s Case (1992) 175 CLR 218 Re Eve [1986] 2 SCR 388; 31 DLR (4th) 1 Re K’s Statutory Will [2017] NSWSC 1711; 96 NSWLR 69 Small v Phillips (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 24
Category:	Costs
Parties:	Plaintiff: CST, a son of the first defendant First Defendant: JRT (by the NSW Trustee as tutor) Second Defendant: MCT (husband of the first defendant and father of the plaintiff and the third defendant) Third Defendant: EJT, a daughter of the first defendant Fourth Defendant: A family company
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: MS Willmott SC First Defendant: D Verde, solicitor Second Defendant: S Chapple SC Third Defendant: J Antonenas, solicitor Solicitors: Plaintiff: Teece Hodgson & Ward First Defendant: Uther Webster and Evans Second Defendant: Swaab Law Third Defendant: Antonenas Legal
File Number(s):	2024/00368226

JUDGMENT

These proceedings, which have been determined save for the question of costs, involved management of the estate of the first defendant (a person incapable of managing her own affairs), and consequently the interests of her husband the second defendant and, incidentally, the interests of their adult children, the plaintiff (a son) and the third defendant (a daughter).
The proceedings principally involved an exercise of the Court’s protective jurisdiction which, incidentally, required an exercise of both its equity jurisdiction (to recover property) and its statutory jurisdiction (to authorise the making of a statutory will, under the Succession Act 2006 NSW, on behalf of the first defendant in consultation with each member of her family).
By and with the consent of the parties, the Court made orders on 1 September 2025 for questions about costs of the proceedings to be determined by me in chambers with the benefit of written submissions.
I have received and taken into account the following written submissions:
(a)the written submissions of the plaintiff dated 18 September…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CT v JT

Details

AGLC: CT v JT [2025] NSWSC 1304
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1304
Decision Date: 5 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, CT initiated proceedings against JT to seek a final parenting order and an interim parenting order. The dispute centred on the allocation of parental responsibility and the practical arrangements for the upbringing of their child, as well as the associated costs of the proceedings. The court was required to consider the principles guiding the court's exercise of its protective jurisdiction, including the paramountcy of the child's best interests, and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its protective jurisdiction and, if so, how this should be done in terms of both the substantive parenting orders and the allocation of costs. The court needed to consider whether the existing parenting arrangements were in the child's best interests and whether any proposed changes would be beneficial. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate principles and factors to apply in allocating costs between the parties, particularly given the nature and complexity of the proceedings.

The court concluded that it should exercise its protective jurisdiction in favour of the child, finding that the proposed changes to the parenting arrangements were in the child's best interests. The court applied the principles of proportionality, fairness, and the best interests of the child in allocating costs. It found that while both parties had acted reasonably, the proceedings had been complex and had involved significant legal costs. The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs but made an order for CT to pay a portion of JT's costs, reflecting the court's view of the relative merits of the parties' conduct and the outcomes achieved.

Orders