McDermott v McDermott (No 2)
Case
•
[2023] QSC 263
•20 November 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
McDermott v McDermott (No 2) [2023] QSC 263
[2023] QSC 263
20 November 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of McDermott v McDermott (No 2) involved a dispute between the applicant and the respondents over the adequacy of the provision for the applicant's maintenance and support under his late father's Will and Codicil. The proceedings were dismissed, and the respondents sought their costs on the standard basis until 30 September 2021 and thereafter on the indemnity basis, to be paid from the assets left by the Will to the trustees of the Christopher Martin McDermott Testamentary Trust (CMMTT). On 16 September 2021, the respondents made an offer to settle to the applicant. The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondents were entitled to the indemnity costs from the assets left by the Will to the trustees of the CMMTT.
The court considered the relevant considerations for indemnity costs, which include whether the applicant's claim was frivolous or vexatious, whether the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing or continuing the proceedings, and whether there were any other factors that warranted indemnity costs. The court noted that the applicant had not succeeded in his claim and that the proceedings were dismissed. Additionally, the offer to settle made by the respondents on 16 September 2021 was not accepted by the applicant. The court found that the applicant's claim was not well-founded and that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing and continuing the proceedings.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the respondents were to be paid their costs on the standard basis until 30 September 2021 and thereafter on the indemnity basis from the assets left by the Will of William Terrence Chisholm McDermott to the trustees of the CMMTT. The court concluded that the respondents were entitled to the indemnity costs as the applicant's claim was not well-founded, and the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing and continuing the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the relevant considerations for indemnity costs.
The court considered the relevant considerations for indemnity costs, which include whether the applicant's claim was frivolous or vexatious, whether the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing or continuing the proceedings, and whether there were any other factors that warranted indemnity costs. The court noted that the applicant had not succeeded in his claim and that the proceedings were dismissed. Additionally, the offer to settle made by the respondents on 16 September 2021 was not accepted by the applicant. The court found that the applicant's claim was not well-founded and that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing and continuing the proceedings.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the respondents were to be paid their costs on the standard basis until 30 September 2021 and thereafter on the indemnity basis from the assets left by the Will of William Terrence Chisholm McDermott to the trustees of the CMMTT. The court concluded that the respondents were entitled to the indemnity costs as the applicant's claim was not well-founded, and the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing and continuing the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the relevant considerations for indemnity costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Indemnity Costs
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
McDermott v McDermott (No. 3) [2025] QSC 99
Cases Citing This Decision
2
McDermott v McDermott (No. 3)
[2025] QSC 99
McDermott v McDermott (No. 3)
[2025] QSC 99
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
1
McDermott v McDermott
[2023] QSC 163
Jvancich v Kennedy (No 2)
[2004] NSWCA 397
Draper v Nixon
[1999] NSWSC 629