SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Matusevich & Ors v Nipperess & Ors [2008] QSC 275
PARTIES:
NIKOLAI KORNEEVICH MATUSEVICH and RUFINA PHILLIPOVNA STRELNIKOVA and GALINA PETROVNA STRELNIKOVA and NINA PETROVNA KLUCHINSKAYA
(plaintiffs)
v
JANICE MAY NIPPERESS and ALLA BRUNCKHORST
(first defendant)
and
NICHOLAS BABIY and TATIANA FLORIANOVA
(second defendant)FILE NO:
855 of 2006
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
10 November 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 July 2008
JUDGE:
Daubney J
ORDER:
1. That that the plaintiffs provide security, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, for the first defendants’ costs up to and including the first day of trial in the sum of $25,000
2. If such security for costs is not provided within 28 days, the plaintiffs’ proceeding against the first defendants will be stayed
3. Costs reserved
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – COSTS – SECURITY FOR COSTS – RESIDENCE OUT OF JURISDICTION – where deceased had made a number of wills – where plaintiff contends that wills dated 12 January 2004 and 19 January 2004 fail because the deceased lacked testamentary capacity – where plaintiffs claim as beneficiaries upon intestacy – where first defendant applies for security for costs – where plaintiffs are impecunious and resident in Kazakhstan – where no reciprocal arrangement for enforcement of judgments between Australia and Kazakhstan – where order for security likely to stifle claim – where significant doubt as to merits of plaintiffs’ claim – whether order for security ought be made
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
P.S.Chellaram v China Ocean Shipping (1991) 102 ALR 321
Re Devoy Fitzgerald and Tender v Fitzgerald [1943] St R Qd 137COUNSEL:
D J Morgan for the plaintiffs
M K Conrick for the first defendantSOLICITORS:
Compass Legal Solutions for the plaintiffs
Spranklins for the first defendant
Rufina Stash (‘the deceased’) died on 18 September 2004. She was 90 years old. She had been married twice during her lifetime, but had no children from either marriage. She had emigrated from Siberia to Queensland some 47 years prior to her death.
The material before me discloses that the deceased had made a number of wills in the years prior to her death. In reverse chronological order, they were:
- a will dated 19 January 2004 prepared by Peter Rowlands, solicitor, appointing the first defendants as executors;
- a will dated 12 January 2004 prepared by the Public Trustee appointing the second defendants as executors;
- a will dated 9 December 2002 prepared by Peter Rowlands, solicitor, appointing the first defendants as executors;
- a will dated 1 March 2000 prepared by K A Taylor, solicitor, appointing Mykola Serdiuk and Russ Brunckhorst as executors.
It also appears, from the material, that the deceased made an ‘informal’ will of some sort in August 2002, another will in January 2002, and a previous will as long ago as May 1994, but the evidence concerning these is sketchy and incomplete.
The plaintiffs in this proceeding are relatives of the…
Continue reading Matusevich & Ors v. Nipperess & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Matusevich v Nipperess [2008] QSC 275
- Case
- [2008] QSC 275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved whether the plaintiffs should be required to provide security for the defendant's costs and, if so, what form this should take. The court had to balance the need to prevent abuse of the legal process with the risk that requiring security for costs would stifle the plaintiffs' legitimate claim. Additionally, the court had to consider the significant doubt over the merits of the plaintiffs' claim, the plaintiffs' financial circumstances, and their residence outside the jurisdiction.
The court held that, in the absence of a reciprocal enforcement agreement between Australia and Kazakhstan, the plaintiffs' inability to provide security for costs could effectively stifle their claim. Despite the significant doubt over the merits of the plaintiffs' claim, the court found that requiring security for costs was necessary to prevent potential abuse of the legal process. The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide security for the first defendant's costs up to and including the first day of trial, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, within 28 days. If the security was not provided within this period, the plaintiffs' proceedings against the first defendant would be stayed. The costs of the proceeding were reserved.
This decision highlights the complexities of cross-jurisdictional litigation, particularly where the plaintiff's residence is in a country without reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of judgments. It underscores the importance of considering the potential impact on the plaintiff's ability to pursue their claim and the need for a balanced approach when deciding whether to require security for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That that the plaintiffs provide security, in a form satisfactory to the Registrar, for the first defendants’ costs up to and including the first day of trial in the sum of $25,000
2. If such security for costs is not provided within 28 days, the plaintiffs’ proceeding against the first defendants will be stayed
3. Costs reserved
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.