Re Karakostov (Costs) - [2025] VSC 477

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY AND PROBATE LIST

IN THE MATTER of the estate of GEORGE KARAKOSTOV, deceased

S PRB 2023 26482

KIRCHE KARAKOSTOV	Plaintiff
v
MARIA KARAKOSTA	First Defendant
KLIMENT KARAKOSTOV	Second Defendant

S PRB 2024 16926

KLIMENT KARAKOSTOV	Plaintiff
v
MARIA KARAKOSTA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gray J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Karakostov (Costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 477

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Probate granted in primary proceeding – Calderbank offer made to unsuccessful party – Disposition of related proceeding relating to earlier will – Costs sought against unsuccessful party – Unsuccessful party seeking costs from estate – Costs generally follow the event in adjudicated proceedings – No order to costs usually awarded in unadjudicated proceedings.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Kirche Karakostov	Mr JD Catlin	N/A
For Maria Karakosta	Mr R Wells	GPZ Legal
For Kliment Karakostov	Self-represented	N/A

HIS HONOUR:

In proceeding S PRB 2023 26482 (Kirche’s proceeding), I granted probate of the will of George Karakostov dated 6 April 2023 (2023 will) to Kirche Karakostov (Kirche), and dismissed the caveat and grounds of objection filed by Kirche’s cousin, Kliment Karakostov (Kliment): Re Karakostov [2025] VSC 430. A caveat filed by George’s wife, Maria Karakosta (Maria), was dismissed by consent, because Maria and Kirche settled before trial.

In proceeding S PRB 2024 16926 (Kliment’s proceeding), Kliment sought probate of a much earlier will, dated 20 December 1989 (1989 will), and this was opposed by Maria as caveator on the ground the 1989 will was attended by suspicious circumstances.

I stayed Kliment’s proceeding pending determination of Kirche’s proceeding, but on the basis that if Kliment’s proceeding later continued, evidence in Kirche’s proceeding would be treated as evidence in Kliment’s proceeding. In light of my grant of probate of the 2023 will, there is now no prospect that Kliment’s proceeding can succeed.

What order should I make to bring Kliment’s proceeding to an end, and what orders should I make on the question of costs of both proceedings?

Following my determination of Kirche’s proceeding, I invited submissions and affidavits from Kliment, Kirche and Maria on the question of costs of Kirche’s proceeding, and on the question of the disposition of Kliment’s proceeding, including costs. I received the following affidavits, which I have received into evidence and taken into account:

(a) the affidavit of Mr Timothy Giasoumi sworn 22 July 2025; and

(b) the affidavit of Mr Kliment Karakostov affirmed 28 July 2025.

Both Kirche and Maria relied on a Calderbank letter signed by both of their solicitors, to Kliment on 8 May 2025. The relevant terms of the offer in the letter were that Kliment release the estate from all claims in return for a sum of $60,000 each being paid to Kliment…

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.

Continue reading Re Karakostov (Costs)

Details

AGLC: Re Karakostov (Costs) [2025] VSC 477
Case: [2025] VSC 477
Decision Date: 7 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Karakostov involved a dispute concerning the costs associated with probate proceedings and related matters. The deceased, Mr. Karakostov, had left two wills, and the dispute centred on the validity and disposition of these wills. The court was required to decide on the costs incurred by the parties involved in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the unsuccessful party in the probate proceedings was liable for costs incurred in a related proceeding concerning an earlier will. This related proceeding had not been formally adjudicated but had implications for the distribution of the estate. The court had to consider whether it was appropriate to order costs in such a situation, given that costs generally follow the event in proceedings that have been adjudicated.

The court found that in the primary probate proceeding, a Calderbank offer had been made, which is an offer to settle on terms favourable to the opposing party. The unsuccessful party in the probate proceeding had not accepted this offer and therefore remained liable for costs in that matter. However, in the related proceeding concerning the earlier will, the court held that no formal order for costs could be made as the proceeding had not been adjudicated. The court emphasised that costs are generally awarded in proceedings that have been concluded through adjudication and that it was not usual to make an order for costs in unadjudicated proceedings.

The court concluded that the unsuccessful party in the probate proceeding was liable for costs in that matter but made no order for costs in the related proceeding. This decision highlights the distinction between adjudicated and unadjudicated proceedings and the principles governing the allocation of costs in probate matters.

Orders