Re Connock (No 2)

The case of Re Connock (No 2) involved an application in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, concerning a dispute about the management of an estate. The applicant sought the removal of the defendant executor on the grounds of misconduct. The executor, in turn, opposed the application, defending their conduct. The court was tasked with determining whether it should exercise its discretion to remove the executor and, if so, what the appropriate costs order should be.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to remove the executor from their position. This required the court to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the executor's conduct and whether it warranted their removal. Additionally, the court had to decide on the costs implications of the application, particularly whether the applicant's unsuccessful application should attract costs.

The court found that there were no grounds to remove the executor, as the allegations of misconduct did not meet the required threshold. The executor had successfully defended the application, and the court concluded that there was no good reason to deviate from the usual order as to costs. Under the Supreme Court Act 1986 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, costs generally follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party bears the costs of the successful party. This decision was consistent with the High Court's reasoning in Northern Territory v Sangare. Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the executor's costs of the application.