Jvancich v Kennedy (No 2)
Case
•
[2004] NSWCA 397
•3 November 2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Jvancich v Kennedy (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 397
[2004] NSWCA 397
3 November 2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned an application for provision from the estate of the deceased under the *Family Provision Act*. The applicant, Jvancich, had been awarded a legacy of $250,000 by the Master. However, on appeal by the executrix and beneficiary, Kennedy, this legacy was reduced to $60,000. The primary dispute on this further appeal related to the costs of the proceedings.
The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to have their trial costs paid out of the notional estate of the deceased, and whether there was any basis for imposing an arbitrary ceiling on the amount of those costs. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the appellant's costs of the appeal should be paid by the respondent or also come out of the notional estate.
The court reasoned that the Master's order as to costs was appropriate and that there was no justification for an arbitrary limit on the applicant's trial costs. Applying established principles regarding costs in family provision claims, the court extended this approach to the costs of the appeal, concluding that it was just and equitable for both the appellant's and the respondent's costs of the appeal to be paid out of the notional estate.
The court ordered that the Master's order as to costs be confirmed and that the costs of both the appellant and the respondent in relation to the appeal be paid out of the notional estate of the deceased.
The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to have their trial costs paid out of the notional estate of the deceased, and whether there was any basis for imposing an arbitrary ceiling on the amount of those costs. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the appellant's costs of the appeal should be paid by the respondent or also come out of the notional estate.
The court reasoned that the Master's order as to costs was appropriate and that there was no justification for an arbitrary limit on the applicant's trial costs. Applying established principles regarding costs in family provision claims, the court extended this approach to the costs of the appeal, concluding that it was just and equitable for both the appellant's and the respondent's costs of the appeal to be paid out of the notional estate.
The court ordered that the Master's order as to costs be confirmed and that the costs of both the appellant and the respondent in relation to the appeal be paid out of the notional estate of the deceased.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
IMO Moerth (No.2) [2011] VSC 275
Cases Citing This Decision
63
Chalik v Chalik
[2025] NSWCA 136
Haertsch v Whiteway (No 2)
[2020] NSWCA 287
DJ Singh v DH Singh
[2018] NSWCA 30
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Moore v Moore
[2004] NSWSC 587
Golosky v Golosky
[1993] NSWCA 111
Singer v Berghouse
[1993] HCA 35