Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij (No 2)

[2025] QSC 267

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mark Khoury v Nira Kooij (No 2) [2025] QSC 267

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:

20 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written Submissions filed 17 September 2025

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1.   The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent on the applicant’s application on the indemnity basis.

2.   The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the respondent’s application on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant and respondent were co-executors of a deceased estate – where the applicant is self-represented – where the applicant had unsuccessfully applied for orders predicated on a misapprehension of the manner in which costs are dealt with in an estate matter – where the applicant had been warned of this misapprehension on two occasions – where the respondent made an offer to settle the matter which was not accepted – where the applicant was directed to file written submissions on costs but did not do so – whether an award of indemnity costs is appropriate in the circumstances

LRD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Phillips, Hickey and Toigo[2013] QCA 305, applied

COUNSEL:

Written submissions for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fox & Company for the respondent

1. On 3 September 2025 I gave judgment for the respondent, Nira Kooij, with respect to both the application by the applicant and her own application.  After giving judgment I gave directions for the parties to file submissions in relation to costs.  The respondent was required to file and serve her submissions on 17 September 2025. That was done.  Mr Khoury, who attended by telephone link, was directed to file his submissions on costs by 1 October 2025.  He has not done so and no application for an extension of time has been made.

2. The respondent seeks her costs of both applications on the indemnity basis.  I will make those orders for the following reasons.

3. The main basis for Mr Khoury’s argument was that he asserted that Ms Kooij had refused to disclose financial information concerning the estate to a co-executor and beneficiary.  That issue had been heard and determined by Williams J.  Her Honour rejected the argument. 

4. Mr Khoury had, as I observed in my reasons, been told by members of this court on two occasions that he misunderstands or misapprehends the manner in which costs are dealt with in an estate matter.  He was warned by both Williams J and Muir J that the respondent’s costs would only become relevant if she made a claim for those costs out of the estate at which time there would need to be an itemised assessment. 

5. Mr Khoury has ignored those warnings and proceeded to re-argue the same failed contentions. 

6. Mr Khoury was informed in correspondence from the respondent’s solicitors of the futility of his case and the respondent offered to settle on the basis that Mr Khoury’s application would be dismissed with no order as to costs.

7. Mr Khoury also made serious and irrelevant allegations of misconduct against the respondent. 

8. This application was brought by Mr Khoury in the face of persistent rejection of the same argument by judges of this court. 

9. Ms Kooij was forced to bring her application because of  Mr Khoury’s intransigence which was based upon his refusal to accept that he was misguided about the issue of disclosing financial information. That led to his refusal to take part in the mediation and to not comply with the earlier order of Muir J.

10. Costs, in the ordinary course, will follow the event.  In this case there are the “special or unusual features” referred to in LRD Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd v Phillips, Hickey and Toigo [2013] QCA 305 at [21] which justify the making of an indemnity costs order.

11. Orders

    1The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent on the applicant’s application on the indemnity basis.

    2The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the respondent’s application on the indemnity basis.