David Resler Walton by his tutor John Mann v Terence Hartman as executor of the estate of Wanda Resler

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, David Resler Walton, a minor, sought to remove John Mann, his appointed tutor, and replace him with another individual. Terence Hartman, the executor of the estate of Wanda Resler, opposed the application and was represented by an amicus curiae, a non-party intervener. The case centred on the issue of who should be the minor's tutor, as well as the costs associated with the application. The court was required to decide whether the costs of the application should be borne by the applicant or the executor.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding the costs of such applications, the role of the amicus curiae, and the appropriate basis for awarding costs. It noted that in cases where a minor seeks to remove a court-appointed tutor, the court has a discretion to determine the costs of the application. The court held that the costs should be assessed on the ordinary basis, meaning that the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the successful party. The court also considered the role of the amicus curiae and the extent to which their involvement should be taken into account when determining costs.

The court found that the application was not successful, and the applicant should pay the costs of the executor on the ordinary basis. The court held that the amicus curiae's involvement did not warrant a departure from the ordinary basis of costs, as the intervener's interests were aligned with those of the executor. The court emphasised that the costs of such applications should not be a deterrent to minors seeking to remove an unsuitable tutor, and that the court's discretion should be exercised judiciously. The court also noted that the costs should not be excessive, and should reflect the nature and complexity of the application.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the executor on the ordinary basis, with the amount to be determined by the Registrar. The court emphasised the importance of the court-appointed tutor system in protecting the interests of minors, and the need for such applications to be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. The court also noted that the costs of such applications should not be a barrier to access to justice for minors seeking to remove an unsuitable tutor.