Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) - [2019] NSWSC 435

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 435
Hearing dates: 20 February 2019
Decision date: 18 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See paragraphs 117-118

Catchwords:
COSTS — Payable out of a fund — Deceased estate — Relevant principles

SUCCESSION — Family provision and maintenance — Consideration of issues requiring determination before final orders can be made — Uncertainty regarding value of estate — Impact of Greek taxation law on value of Greek estate — Effect of new evidence concerning same after principal judgment already handed down — Case management
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
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 98
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G
Cases Cited: Bell v Crewes [2011] NSWSC 1159
Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604
Category: Costs
Parties: Julia Katramados (plaintiff)
Despina Hasapis (first defendant)
Adriana Kalantzis (second defendant)
Maria Kalantzis (third defendant)
Vassilis Kalantzis (fourth defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Hill (plaintiff)
N C T Bilinsky (third defendant)
D Williams (fourth defendant)
Solicitors:
First Choice Family Lawyers (plaintiff)
Excused (first defendant)
Self-represented (second defendant)
Whittens & McKeough (third defendant)
Sharah & Associates (fourth defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/374480

Judgment

This is the third substantive judgment in these proceedings.
The first judgment was handed down on 22 June 2018 (the principal judgment): Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948.
The second judgment was published on 26 October 2018 (the second judgment): Katramados v Hasapis (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1604.
In these reasons, I will largely assume that the reader has an understanding of the principal and second judgments. I will use the same terms to describe the parties and other matters as I have used in those judgments.

Background

In relation to the probate aspect of these proceedings, all interested parties agreed that the Court should revoke the grant of probate of the 2006 Will that it had made to Despina, and instead grant letters of administration with the December 2014 Will attached to a suitable person resident in this State.
In the principal judgment, I set out at par 289 what I considered to be the unusual features of the present case.
I noted that the value of the deceased's remaining assets in Greece were said to be worth $690,914.43. After being divided equally between Julia, Mary, Adriana and Billy in accordance with the Greek law of intestacy, I noted that this would give each of them $172,728.61. I noted the uncertainty as to the value of the property and the difficulties and delay that may be involved in realising it.
I adopted a value for the deceased's property in this State of $1,900,000.
In the balance of my reasons, I noted that, if Julia was given Adriana's and Billy's shares in the Greek…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: Katramados v Hasapis (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 435
Case: [2019] NSWSC 435
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Katramados v Hasapis (No 3), the parties were involved in a dispute concerning the distribution of a deceased estate, with particular focus on family provision and maintenance claims. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether certain costs, which were to be paid out of the estate, should be awarded and if so, how they should be calculated. Additionally, the court had to determine the value of the estate, particularly in relation to assets held in Greece, and how this value would impact any potential family provision orders. The case also involved the effect of new evidence concerning the value of the Greek estate, which emerged after the principal judgment had been handed down.

The court addressed these issues by first considering the principles governing costs payable out of a deceased estate, which included the necessity to ensure that the costs were reasonable and properly documented. In examining the value of the estate, the court acknowledged the complications posed by the Greek taxation law and its impact on the estate's valuation. The court also considered the relevance of new evidence introduced after the initial judgment, weighing its significance against the finality of the original decision. The court highlighted the importance of case management in ensuring that all relevant issues were properly addressed before making final orders, particularly in situations where the value of the estate was uncertain.

In its reasoning, the court determined that certain costs were payable from the estate, but it also stressed the need for careful consideration of the estate's overall value, including assets held abroad. The court concluded that the new evidence concerning the Greek estate did not significantly alter the original valuation, and therefore, it did not warrant a substantial change in the final orders. The court also noted that the costs orders would have a direct impact on the terms of any family provision orders, necessitating a careful and thorough approach to case management to ensure that all relevant factors were taken into account.

Orders