Estate Liam Rowan Dillon (No 2)

Case [2023] QSC 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Estate Liam Rowan Dillon (No 2) [2023] QSC 50

PARTIES:

VIRGINIA CORAL MAIDEN

(applicant)

v

JANE MARY GRIMLEY

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1147/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2023

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to s 6 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, the applicant be granted Letters of Administration on intestacy in respect of the estate of Liam Rowan Dillon (“the estate”); and

2. Pursuant to r 626(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Caveat filed by the respondent in respect of the deceased’s estate be set aside; and

3.   The respondent’s Application for Letters of Administration on intestacy in respect of the deceased’s estate be dismissed without any order as to costs; and

4.   The respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application of the applicant filed 7 September 2022 to be assessed on the standard basis; and

5.   The applicants costs of both the proceedings be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis to the extent they are not met by the respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – FUND, ESTATE, OR PROPERTY – UNNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR PROBATE, LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION OR RELATED PROCEEDINGS – INDEMNITY COSTS – POWER TO ORDER – where the respondent was not the successful in being granted Letters of Administration – where the respondent submits that both the applicant and respondent costs be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis – whether the applicants costs be paid by the respondent on a standard basis – whether the applicants costs be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis.

Succession Act 1981 (Qld) s 6
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 626(2)
Estate of HRA (deceased) [2021] QSC 49
Frizzo v Frizzo (No 2) [2011] QSC 177
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
S v B [2004] QCA 449

COUNSEL:

M Rothery for the applicant
T Arnold for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rees R and Sydney Jones for the applicant
Purcell & Associates for the respondent

  1. By reasons published 3 March 2023[1],  I determined that the respondent, Ms Grimley was not the de facto spouse of the deceased Mr Dillon at the time of his death.

    [1]Estate Liam Rowan Dillon [2023] QSC 27.

  2. The respondent, Ms Grimley’s case that she was the de facto spouse did not succeed and as the parties acknowledge, it is appropriate for the applicant, Ms Maiden, to be granted letters of administration. The parties agree upon the form of the orders with the exception of costs.

  3. On behalf of the applicant, Ms Maiden, orders are sought that the unsuccessful respondent, Ms Grimley, pay her costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis and to the extent that the applicant’s costs are not met by the respondent, they are paid out of the estate…

Continue reading Estate Liam Rowan Dillon (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Estate Liam Rowan Dillon (No 2) [2023] QSC 50
Case
[2023] QSC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Estate Liam Rowan Dillon, the deceased, the applicant, a close relative, sought Letters of Administration on intestacy from the court, while the respondent, another relative, lodged a caveat against the grant of Letters of Administration and counter-applied for the same. The case was heard in the Queensland District Court, where the primary issue revolved around the allocation of costs between the parties, particularly concerning indemnity costs and whether they should be paid by the respondent or the estate.

The court was required to decide whether the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings should be borne by the respondent on a standard basis or whether they should be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriateness of the respondent's request for both parties' costs to be paid by the estate on an indemnity basis.

The court granted the applicant Letters of Administration on intestacy, set aside the respondent's caveat, and dismissed the respondent's application without any order as to costs. The court ruled that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs of the application filed on 7 September 2022 on the standard basis. Furthermore, the court decided that the applicant's costs of both the proceedings should be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis to the extent they are not met by the respondent. This decision was based on the consideration of the respondent's unsuccessful application and the overall fairness of the cost distribution between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 6 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), subject to the formal requirements of the Registrar, the applicant be granted Letters of Administration on intestacy in respect of the estate of Liam Rowan Dillon (“the estate”); and

2. Pursuant to r 626(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Caveat filed by the respondent in respect of the deceased’s estate be set aside; and

3. The respondent’s Application for Letters of Administration on intestacy in respect of the deceased’s estate be dismissed without any order as to costs; and

4. The respondent pay the costs of and incidental to the application of the applicant filed 7 September 2022 to be assessed on the standard basis; and

5. The applicants costs of both the proceedings be paid out of the estate on an indemnity basis to the extent they are not met by the respondent.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.