Porker v Richards (No 2)

Case [2017] SASC 11


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

PORKER v RICHARDS & OTHERS (NO 2)

[2017] SASC 11

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue

14 February 2017

PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - COSTS OF ISSUES

PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS

Principal reasons for judgment delivered on 1 July 2016 in Porker v Richards [2016] SASC 98.

The first and second defendants seek reimbursement and exoneration for legal costs and other expenses claimed to have been incurred as executors of the estate.

Questions arise as to interest on the principal amounts of the judgments to be entered against the first and third defendants.

Questions of costs of action arise between the parties.

Held:

1.  The second defendant is entitled to indemnity out of the estate for non-legal expenses incurred as executor of $6,843 and exoneration for legal costs incurred as executor of $18,964 (at [18]).

2.  The first defendant is entitled to indemnity out of the estate for non-legal expenses incurred as executor of $17,829 and for legal costs incurred as executor of $6,302 (at [24]).

3.  Liberty to any party to apply within 21 days in respect of estate legal costs incurred by or allowed to the first or second defendant (at [58]).

4.  The estate is entitled to interest of $10,659 against the first defendant (at [26]).

5.  The first defendant is entitled to interest against the third defendant of $4,118 (at [27]).

6.  Judgment is granted in favour of the first and second defendants as executors of the estate against the first defendant in her personal capacity for $53,503 inclusive of interest and net of the first defendant’s entitlement to indemnity against the estate (at [61]).

7.  The first defendant is entitled to judgment against the third defendant for $16,870 inclusive of interest (at [62]).

8.  The following amounts be paid out of the monies (excluding interest) that were paid into the suitors’ fund in this action:

(a)  $68,324 to Public Trustee on trust for Garry;

(b)  $30,691 to Stephanie;

(c)  $94,131 to Marjory;

(d)  $51,504 to Bryan.

(at [65] and [66]).

9.  Interest earned on the monies in the suitors’ fund is to be calculated and paid in equal portions to the plaintiff and the first, second and third defendants (at [66]).

10. The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of action on a party and party basis up to 27 October 2015 and thereafter on a solicitor and client basis (at [36]).

11. The first defendant is to pay the second defendant’s costs in respect of the March 2016 affidavits of the first defendant and Benjamin Walker, the first defendant’s costs of giving evidence at trial and the costs of appearance of her lawyer on the first day of trial (at [43] to [45]).

12. The first defendant is to pay the third defendant’s costs of the first defendant’s cross claim against him from 13 March 2016…

Continue reading Porker v Richards (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Porker v Richards (No 2) [2017] SASC 11
Case
[2017] SASC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Porker v Richards (No 2) is a case involving the distribution of the estate of a deceased person and related costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute centred around the proper allocation of estate costs, reimbursement of expenses to the executors, and the distribution of the estate among the beneficiaries.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of estate costs, reimbursement of expenses to the executors, and the distribution of the estate among the beneficiaries. The court had to decide on the allocation of costs between the parties and the executors, as well as the distribution of the estate based on the will and the judgments granted in favour of the estate and the beneficiaries.

The court found that the costs incurred by the executors should be reimbursed from the estate, with certain exceptions. Specifically, the court allowed Marjory to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in her capacity as executor and for legal costs incurred to von Doussas. Stephanie was also granted reimbursement for expenses incurred in her capacity as executor. The court further ordered that a portion of the funds in court be retained pending any applications for estate legal costs. Regarding the distribution of the estate, the court declared that the net total value of the estate should be paid equally among the four beneficiaries. The court also made orders for judgments in favour of the executors against Stephanie and in favour of Stephanie against Bryan, with the amounts to be offset against their respective shares in the estate.

The court made several orders, including declarations regarding reimbursement of expenses to the executors, liberty to apply for estate legal costs, judgments in favour of the executors against Stephanie and in favour of Stephanie against Bryan, and the distribution of the estate among the beneficiaries. The court also ordered that Stephanie pay certain costs to Garry, Marjory, and Bryan, with costs to be adjudicated if not agreed. The court further allowed Marjory’s costs incurred with von Doussas as estate costs.

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

The net total value of the estate of $273,297 (plus interest earned in the suitors’ fund) should be paid equally to the four beneficiaries to whom equal shares in the estate were left. The total amount payable by Bryan to Stephanie of $16,870 should be offset against his share of the estate on the basis that this will be in full satisfaction of the judgment to be granted in favour of Stephanie against him. The total amount payable to the estate by Stephanie of $53,503 less the amount due to her by Bryan of $16,870, giving a net amount of $36,633, should be offset against her share of the estate on the basis that this will be in full satisfaction of the judgments to be granted in favour of the estate against her and in her favour against Bryan.Conclusion I make the following orders:1.Declaration that Marjory is entitled to reimbursement out of the estate of $6,843 in respect of expenses incurred in her capacity as executor of the estate and exoneration in the sum of $18,964 in respect of legal costs incurred to von Doussas making a total of $25,807.2.Declaration that Stephanie is entitled to reimbursement out of the estate of $24,131 in respect of expenses incurred in her capacity as executor of the estate.3.Liberty to any party to apply within 21 days in respect of estate legal costs incurred by or allowed to Marjory or Stephanie.4.$10,000 of the funds in court be retained in court pending the hearing and determination of any application under the liberty to apply contained in order 3.5.Judgment is granted in favour of the Marjory and Stephanie as executors of the estate against Stephanie in her personal capacity in the sum of $53,503 inclusive of interest and net of Stephanie’s entitlement to indemnity against the estate.6.Judgment is granted in favour of Stephanie against Bryan in the sum of $16,820 inclusive of interest.7.The following amounts be paid out of the monies that were paid into the suitors’ fund in this action (excluding interest): (a) $68,324 to Public Trustee on trust for Garry;(b) $30,691 to Stephanie;(c) $94,131 to Marjory;(d) $51,504 to Bryan.8.Interest earned on the monies in the suitors’ fund is to be calculated and paid in equal portions to Garry, Stephanie, Marjory and Bryan.9. Stephanie is to pay Garry’s costs of action on a party and party basis up to 27 October 2015 and thereafter on a solicitor and client basis, such costs to be adjudicated if not agreed. 10.Stephanie is to pay Marjory’s costs of preparing, affirming, filing and serving the affidavits of Marjory affirmed on 14 March 2016 and Benjamin Walker affirmed on 15 March 2016, Marjory’s costs of giving evidence at trial and costs of the appearance of her lawyer on the first day of trial (excluding negotiations for settlement), such costs to be adjudicated if not agreed.11. Stephanie is to pay Bryan’s costs of Stephanie’s cross claim against him (but not Bryan’s costs of Garry’s action) from 13 March 2016 on a solicitor and client basis, such costs to be adjudicated if not agreed.ANNEXURE AMarjory costs incurred with von Doussas allowed as estate costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.