Re Andrews; Jones v Robinson (No 2) - [2025] VSC 565

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

S ECI 2019 02431

IN THE MATTER of s 34 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

-and-

IN THE MATTER of s 48 of the Trustee Act 1958

-and-

IN THE MATTER of the will and estate of BRUCE DESMOND ANDREWS, deceased

BETWEEN:

JENNIFER LEE JONES	Plaintiff
v
JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON (sued in his capacity as executor and trustee of the will and estate of the deceased and in his personal capacity) (and others according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	GRAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers – last submissions filed 14 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Andrews; Jones v Robinson (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 565

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Costs — Referral of costs assessment to Costs Court by Judicial Registrar — Former executors were legal practitioners who provided legal services relating to administration of estate — Former executors were an employee solicitor and a director of a law practice that issued invoices on which payments for the executors’ costs were made out of the estate — Plaintiff commenced this proceeding for removal of the executors and appointment of independent administrator — Jurisdiction and powers of Court relating to assessment of reasonableness of costs invoiced by law practice and assessment of whether the invoiced costs of former executors were properly paid out of the estate — Law practice was given the opportunity to be heard in relation to potential orders joining it as defendant and orders facilitating referral of assessment of costs invoiced by law practice to the Costs Court — Law practice opposed any such orders — Whether to direct law practice to issue summons in Costs Court — Whether to provide opportunity for administrator to issue summons in Costs Court —Civil Procedure Act 2010 s 9 — Supreme Court Act 1986 s 24(1) — Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 r 63.38.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff And for a non-party, the Administrator, Ms Ines Kallweit	L Dawson of counsel (written submissions)	Castra Legal Costing Pty Ltd
For the Defendants	No appearance
For a non-party, Best Hooper Pty Ltd	S Warne of counsel (written submissions)	Best Hooper Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Context

On 30 August 2024 I published interim reasons for decision in relation to an application by Best Hooper Pty Ltd (Best Hooper) by summons filed 2 July 2024 in this proceeding.[1]
[1]Re Andrews; Jones v Robinson & Anor [2024] VSC 524 (interim reasons).

Best Hooper has never been a party to this proceeding. Its counsel objected to me relying on findings by other judicial officers, and contended that the evidentiary foundation on which I could reach any findings of my own was very limited, because Best Hooper did not have access to the affidavits on file in the proceeding…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Andrews; Jones v Robinson (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSC 565
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Re Andrews; Jones v Robinson (No 2), the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to consider the reasonableness of costs invoiced by a law practice for legal services rendered during the administration of an estate. The former executors of the estate, who were legal practitioners, invoiced the estate for their services. The plaintiff initiated proceedings for the removal of the executors and the appointment of an independent administrator, seeking to challenge the costs invoiced by the law practice. The court was required to determine whether the costs invoiced were reasonable and whether they were properly paid out of the estate.

The legal issues before the court included the jurisdiction and powers of the court in assessing the reasonableness of the costs invoiced by the law practice and whether these costs were properly paid out of the estate. The court also considered whether to direct the law practice to issue summons in the Costs Court and whether to provide an opportunity for the administrator to do the same. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010, the Supreme Court Act 1986, and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025.

The court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to assess the reasonableness of the costs invoiced by the law practice. However, it found that the law practice was not a party to the proceedings and had not been given an opportunity to be heard. The court determined that the law practice should be joined as a defendant to provide it with an opportunity to be heard in relation to the assessment of the costs. The court also held that the administrator should be given the opportunity to issue summons in the Costs Court to facilitate the assessment of the costs invoiced by the law practice. Consequently, the court directed the law practice to issue summons in the Costs Court and provided the administrator with the opportunity to do the same.

The court's final orders included the direction for the law practice to issue summons in the Costs Court to assess the reasonableness of the costs invoiced by the law practice and the provision of an opportunity for the administrator to issue summons in the Costs Court. The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing all parties with an opportunity to be heard in proceedings concerning the assessment of costs in the administration of an estate.

Orders