Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij [2025] QSC 217

PARTIES:

MARK KHOURY

(applicant)
v
NIRA KOOIJ
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS3735/24

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2025

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1.   That the Application filed 4 June 2025 is dismissed.

2.   That the Applicant must, within 21 days of the date of this order, do all things necessary to cause the Respondent to be reimbursed from the deceased’s Commonwealth Bank account in respect of her payment of the invoice of Clinical Corporate Consulting in the sum of $6,600.

If you, Mark Khoury do not obey this order within the time specified, you will be liable to court proceedings to compel you to obey it and punishment for contempt.

3.   That the Applicant must, within 21 days of the date of this order, pay the mediator’s fee of Lee Nevison in the sum of $7,150.

If you, Mark Khoury do not obey this order within the time specified, you will be liable to court proceedings to compel you to obey it and punishment for contempt.

4.   That the Applicant must pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by the mediation before Mr Nevison not proceeding.

5.   I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – HOPELESS CASES – where the applicant and respondent are joint executors of a deceased estate – where there is an ongoing dispute as to the validity of the will – where the applicant is self-represented – where the applicant has disobeyed previous costs orders – where the applicant applies for relief predicated on an asserted entitlement to “full itemised disclosure of all the legal costs and disbursements incurred or anticipated to be claimed against the estate” – where that assertion is unsupported by authority – whether the time for compliance with the costs orders should be extended – whether the application should be dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Artificial Intelligence – litigant in person – use of Gen AI – hallucinations – false names and citations – redaction on published reasons

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 374(5)

Khoury v Kooij[2025] QCA 134, cited
Luck v Secretary, Services Australia [2025] FCAFC 26, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J Byrnes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fox & Company for the respondent

1. Manuel Khoury died on 20 October 2022. By a will dated 15 September 2022 he appointed the applicant and the respondent as his executors. They are both children of the deceased. He had previously executed a will in 2017. Probate has not been granted.

2. Mr Khoury, the applicant, seeks to propound the 2022 will. Ms Kooij, the respondent, has lodged a caveat. Mr Khoury failed in an application to remove the caveat.

3. On this application, Mr Khoury seeks many orders – 18 in all – which mostly relate…