Hoobin v Hoobin (No. 2)

The appeal in Hoobin v Hoobin (No. 2) before the Supreme Court involved the parties, Hoobin and the executors of the estate of Hoobin, in a dispute regarding the distribution of the deceased's estate. The original decision had been made in the Local Court, which had determined various orders under the Family Provision Act and decided how the burden of these orders should be borne. The present appeal centred around the allocation of costs, particularly in light of a settlement offer made by the unsuccessful administratrix via a Calderbank letter, which was not accepted by the defendants.

The legal issues that the court was required to address were whether the unsuccessful administratrix should bear a portion of the costs personally, given that the original orders had been made on the assumption that all costs would be paid from the estate. The court had to consider the implications of the unsuccessful administratrix's failure to accept the settlement offer, and whether this affected her personal liability for costs. Additionally, the court had to determine the effect of the election under section 61D of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act, which shifted the burden of costs from the estate to the successful defendants.

In its reasoning, the court held that the unsuccessful administratrix's failure to accept the settlement offer made via the Calderbank letter was a relevant factor in determining her personal liability for costs. The court considered that the original orders, which allocated the burden of costs to the estate, were made under the assumption that the unsuccessful administratrix would not bear any personal costs. However, the court found that the election under section 61D of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act meant that the successful defendants would bear the burden of costs. Consequently, the unsuccessful administratrix should bear a portion of the costs personally, reflecting the court's assessment of the circumstances and the impact of her failure to accept the settlement offer.

The court's final orders were that the unsuccessful administratrix should bear a portion of the costs personally, while the successful defendants would bear the remaining costs. This decision took into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the unsuccessful administratrix's failure to accept the settlement offer and the effect of the election under section 61D of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.