Pang v Fong (No. 2)

[2014] NSWSC 1924

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Pang v Fong (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 1924
Hearing dates:	In chambers on the papers
Date of orders:	22 December 2014
Decision date:	22 December 2014
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	Robb J
Decision:	See part 56 of these reasons
Catchwords:	SUCCESSION – family provision and maintenance – family provision order to be made in favour of the plaintiff out of notional estate – costs orders to be made – plaintiff served an offer of compromise on defendant executors – family provision order to be made more favourable to plaintiff than offer of compromise – claim by plaintiff that defendant executors conducted the defence as extreme adversarial proceedings – plaintiff claims defendant executors should bear their own costs personally – order that the plaintiff’s costs be paid on the ordinary basis out of the notional estate – order having the effect that the first defendant bear the difference between the plaintiff’s costs calculated on the indemnity and ordinary bases from the date of the plaintiff’s first offer of compromise – order that the defendant executors’ costs be paid on the indemnity basis out of the notional estate – orders made to finalise claim
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Bradley Bates v Robert Henry Cooke (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1322 Bukovac v Baron [2001] NSWSC 62 Chapple v Wilcox [2014] NSWCA 392 Friend v Brien (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 614 Walsh v Walsh (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1281 Wang v D’Ambrosio [1999] NSWSC 227
Category:	Costs
Parties:	David Lai Kan Pang (plaintiff) Susan Wai Wah Fong (first defendant) Eva Susan Fong (second defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: V Hartstein (plaintiff) M Sneddon (first and second defendants) Solicitors: Summit Legal (plaintiff) Lee Hourigan & Brooks (first and second defendants)
File Number(s):	2013/144328
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

Introduction

1. On 17 October 2014 I delivered judgment in these proceedings, in which the plaintiff, Mr Pang, sought a family provision order under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act), against his sister, Mrs Susan Fong, and her daughter, Mrs Eva Fong, as executors of Mr Pang’s father’s estate,.

2. I directed the parties to bring in short minutes of order to implement my findings in the principal judgment. These reasons deal with a dispute between the parties as to the orders that the Court should make, principally concerning the appropriate costs order.

3. The father left his estate by his will to Mr Pang, Mrs Susan Fong, and six other persons in equal shares. However, the value of the estate was only $3000. At the time of his death, the father was entitled to the money in a number of bank accounts jointly with Mrs Susan Fong. The total amount in the accounts was $1,165,951.46. Mrs Susan Fong became entitled to all of that money by survivorship upon the death of her father.

4. However, Mrs Susan Fong voluntarily treated half of the amount to which…