ORESKI -v- IKAC [2007] WASC 195 (S)
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 195 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2048/2005 | 15-16 AUGUST 2007 | |
| Coram: | BARKER J | 30/08/07 | |
| 5/10/07 | |||
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Defendants' costs to be taxed to be paid out of estate of deceased Plaintiff to bear own costs of action | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
DECISION : 5 OCTOBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2048 of 2005 BETWEEN : MARTA ORESKI
- Plaintiff
AND
MARIJA IKAC
First Defendant
BERNARD IKAC
Second Defendant
VLADIMIR IKAC
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Costs - Wills - Probate - Action for proof in solemn form of informal will - General rule as to costs - Exceptions in probate proceedings - Unsuccessful plaintiff to bear own costs
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
Wills Act 1970 (WA), s 8
Result:
Defendants' costs to be taxed to be paid out of estate of deceased
Plaintiff to bear own costs of action
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr D L Jones
First Defendant : Mr D M Bruns
Second Defendant : Mr D M Bruns
Third Defendant : Mr D M Bruns
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Banaszak Legal
First Defendant : Hoffmans
Second Defendant : Hoffmans
Third Defendant : Hoffmans
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Argo v Whittaker [2007] WASC 131
Becker v Public…
Continue reading Oreski v Ikac
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Oreski v Ikac [2007] WASC 195 (S)
- Case
- [2007] WASC 195 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Oreski v Ikac, heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involved a dispute over the validity of a purported will of Jimmy Hudson. The plaintiff, Marta Oreski, sought to have the document proved as the deceased's will, while the defendants, the deceased's relatives, opposed this claim. The court found that the document was not intended by the deceased to be his will and did not constitute a valid testamentary disposition. Following this decision, the plaintiff sought an order that her costs, as well as those of the defendants, be paid out of the deceased's estate. The defendants argued that the plaintiff should bear her own costs of the action.
The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, unless one of two exceptions applies in probate matters. The first exception applies where the testator or a residual beneficiary is at fault, causing the litigation. The second exception applies where it is reasonable to propound or challenge the purported will. The court found that the first exception did not apply in this case, as there was no evidence of fault on the part of the deceased or any residual beneficiary. However, the court did find that the second exception applied, as it was reasonable for the plaintiff to commence proceedings to clarify the status of the document her son claimed to have found in the deceased's motor vehicle. Nonetheless, the court determined that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to maintain the proceedings after receiving expert advice that the typewriter used to type the document was not the one the deceased had access to and used himself. The court concluded that the plaintiff should bear her own costs of the action, while the defendants were entitled to have their costs to be taxed paid out of the estate of the deceased.
The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, unless one of two exceptions applies in probate matters. The first exception applies where the testator or a residual beneficiary is at fault, causing the litigation. The second exception applies where it is reasonable to propound or challenge the purported will. The court found that the first exception did not apply in this case, as there was no evidence of fault on the part of the deceased or any residual beneficiary. However, the court did find that the second exception applied, as it was reasonable for the plaintiff to commence proceedings to clarify the status of the document her son claimed to have found in the deceased's motor vehicle. Nonetheless, the court determined that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to maintain the proceedings after receiving expert advice that the typewriter used to type the document was not the one the deceased had access to and used himself. The court concluded that the plaintiff should bear her own costs of the action, while the defendants were entitled to have their costs to be taxed paid out of the estate of the deceased.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.