Johnston v Herrod

Johnston and others versus Herrod and others involved a dispute among siblings regarding the division of their deceased father's estate and partnership interests. The court had to determine whether the costs of the proceedings should be awarded on a standard or indemnity basis, given the contentious nature of the interactions between the parties.

The central issue was whether the costs incurred by the appellants should be awarded on an indemnity basis, rather than the standard basis ordered by the primary judge. The appellants argued that the primary judge's decision to award standard costs was inappropriate given the reprehensible conduct of the respondents, which included threats and coercion. They contended that the primary judge's approach effectively penalised them for the conduct of the respondents.

The court considered the nature of the conduct of the respondents and the primary judge's findings regarding that conduct. It noted that the primary judge had detailed the reprehensible behaviour of the respondents but had concluded that it did not warrant indemnity costs. The court held that the primary judge's assessment of the costs was correct, and there was no basis to overturn the decision on the indemnity costs issue. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded costs.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs, affirming the primary judge's assessment and refusal to award indemnity costs.