Katramados v Hasapis (No 6) - [2022] NSWSC 642

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 6) [2022] NSWSC 642
Hearing dates: 3 February 2022
Decision date: 23 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See par [23] below

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — family provision — complete determination of final substantive and costs orders to be made following earlier judgments — no point of principle

Cases Cited:
Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Julia Katramados (Plaintiff)
Despina Hasapis (First Defendant)
Adriana Kalantzis (Second Defendant)
Maria Kalantzis (Third Defendant)
Vassilis Kalantzis (Fourth Defendant)
Gordon Albert Salier AM (Administrator)
Joanne Sharah & Associates (Costs Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Williams (Costs Applicant)
Solicitors:
First Choice Family Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Excused (First Defendant)
Self-represented (Second Defendant)
Excused (Third Defendant)
Self-represented (Fourth Defendant)
P B Ritz Lawyers (Administrator)
Joanne Sharah & Associates (Costs Applicant)

File Number(s): 2015/374480

Judgment

On 16 December 2021, I published my fifth judgment in these proceedings: Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656. Given the history of these proceedings, it is perhaps not surprising that my claim that that judgment should be the final judgment in the proceedings was overly optimistic.
At J [106], I set out orders that I proposed to make to finally deal with the proceedings but gave the parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed orders.
I have since been informed by or on behalf of Julia, Despina and Maria that they have no objection to the proposed orders being made. Adriana and Billy did not respond, although Billy has sent a number of emails to my Associate about his former solicitor's claim for orders that will facilitate Billy paying the legal fees that he owes.
In the circumstances, I will make the proposed orders to finally bring these proceedings to an end.
In proposed order (16) I provided for the Administrator to pay to himself his additional remuneration and costs of completing the administration of the deceased's estate in New South Wales, which he then estimated as being at least $5,500. That proposed order was without prejudice to the Administrator's right to make an application for the allowance of additional remuneration and costs.
The Administrator has now established by evidence that his remuneration and costs for completing the administration of the deceased's estate is $19,767, rather than the estimate of $5,500.
In the final orders that I will set out below, I have revised proposed order (16) to make an order authorising the Administrator to pay himself $19,767 out of the estate of the deceased in New South Wales to cover his final remuneration and costs.
The final matter that must be dealt with is the claim made by Ms Joanne Sharah, Billy's former solicitor, for an order directing the Administrator to pay the amount allowed in the final orders to be paid out of the deceased's estate in respect of Billy's costs to be paid to Ms Sharah. That is the amount of $130,735.60 that is the subject of…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: Katramados v Hasapis (No 6) [2022] NSWSC 642
Case: [2022] NSWSC 642
Decision Date: 23 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the parties Katramados and Hasapis, who were in a dispute regarding family provision claims. The case had previously been heard and various orders had been made. The court was required to make final substantive and costs orders following the earlier judgments. The appeal did not involve any point of principle.

The central legal issues that the court needed to decide related to the appropriate final substantive and costs orders in the context of the family provision claims. The court had to consider the arguments and evidence presented by both parties and determine the most equitable outcome in line with the Family Provision Act. The court also needed to decide on the costs to be borne by each party, taking into account the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principles and factors relevant to family provision claims, including the reasonable financial provision for the applicant and the deceased's estate. The court reviewed the earlier judgments and the evidence presented to ensure that the final orders reflected the equitable outcome. The court also assessed the conduct of the parties and the costs incurred during the proceedings. The court found no point of principle that would require a different outcome from the earlier judgments.

The court determined that the final substantive and costs orders should be made in accordance with the earlier judgments, with some adjustments based on the evidence and arguments presented. The court ordered that the estate be distributed in a manner that provided reasonable financial provision for the applicant, taking into account the deceased's intentions and the circumstances of the case. The court also made orders regarding the costs to be borne by each party, considering the nature of the dispute and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings.

Orders