Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) - [2018] NSWSC 1604

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604
Hearing dates: 4 July 2018
Decision date: 26 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See paragraphs 140-144

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION - wills, probate and administration - making of orders to implement earlier judgment – no point of principle

SUCCESSION - wills, probate and administration - invitation to parties to make submissions as to whether any special costs order should be made because the deceased’s conduct had created the need for the proceedings, or it was reasonable for the defendants to contest the plaintiff’s probate claim

SUCCESSION - family provision and maintenance - consideration of issues requiring determination before final orders can be made – significance of costs orders for the terms of available family provision orders – case management orders to be made
COSTS - Reasonableness of costs incurred - division of costs incurred between probate and family provision claims - Parties to be ordered to provide further information to the Court concerning the legal costs that they have incurred
Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Nudd v Mannix [2009] NSWCA 327
Curnow v Curnow [2014] NSWSC 896
Perpetual Trustee v Baker [1999] NSWCA 244
Gray v Hart; Estate of Harris (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1562
Bell v Crewes [2011] NSWSC 1159
Category: Costs
Parties: Julia Katramados (plaintiff)
Despina Hasapis (first defendant/first cross defendant)
Adriana Kalantzis (second defendant/second cross claimant)
Maria Kalantzis (third defendant)
Vassilis Kalantzis (fourth defendant/fourth cross claimant)
Representation:
Counsel: A Hill (plaintiff)
FFF Salama/L Teoh (first defendant)
NCT Bilinsky (third defendant)
D Williams (fourth defendant)
Solicitors: First Choice Family Lawyers (plaintiff)
Spiro Troussas Principal Lawyer (first defendant)
Self-represented (second defendant)
Whittens McKeough (third defendant)
Sharah & Associates (fourth defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/374480

Judgment

Introduction

Reasons for judgment in these proceedings were published on 22 June 2018: see Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948 (the principal judgment).
I will use the same terms to describe the parties and other matters as I have used in the principal judgment.
As explained at [332]-[336] of the principal judgment, I came to the conclusion that it would be premature for the Court to formulate the orders that the Court should make. Primarily, that was because the Court could not assess the effect that the consequential costs orders would have on the substantive orders.
When the reasons for judgment were published, I invited the parties to consider the consequences and provide additional written submissions. I appointed a hearing for 4 July 2018 to hear the parties. By that date, Julia, Mary and Billy had served further written submission and evidence. Adriana, who has represented herself for most of the proceedings, made oral submissions.
Following the hearing on 4 July 2018, the Court has received written submissions dated 11 July 2018 on behalf of Despina, supported by a solicitor's affidavit setting out the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Katramados v Hasapis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1604
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) involves a dispute related to succession, wills, probate, and administration. The parties involved are Katramados and Hasapis, with the matter being heard before the court. The primary focus of the case is to implement an earlier judgment regarding the making of orders, with no point of principle being contested. Additionally, the court is invited to consider whether a special costs order should be made, given the deceased's conduct that led to the proceedings or if it was reasonable for the defendants to contest the plaintiff's probate claim.

The legal issues at hand pertain to the consideration of family provision and maintenance matters, which require determination before final orders can be made. The court must also assess the significance of costs orders for the terms of available family provision orders and make appropriate case management orders. Furthermore, the reasonableness of costs incurred is under scrutiny, specifically the division of costs between probate and family provision claims. Both parties are ordered to provide further information to the court concerning the legal costs they have incurred.

In its reasoning, the court addresses the issues of succession, family provision, and maintenance. It considers the need for case management orders and the significance of costs orders for family provision. The court also evaluates the reasonableness of costs incurred and the division of costs between probate and family provision claims. The court finds no point of principle in dispute and invites the parties to make submissions on whether a special costs order should be made. It orders both parties to provide further information regarding their legal costs.

The final orders of the court will depend on the submissions made by the parties concerning the special costs order and the further information provided regarding their legal costs. The court will determine the reasonableness of the costs incurred and the division of costs between probate and family provision claims. The outcome will also address the consideration of family provision and maintenance matters, the significance of costs orders, and the need for appropriate case management orders.

Orders