Re Saric; Saric v Vukasovic (No 2)

The case of Re Saric; Saric v Vukasovic (No 2) involved a family provision claim by the plaintiff, Saric, against the defendant, Vukasovic. The dispute centred on the appropriate amount of family provision to be awarded by the court, following an offer of compromise by Vukasovic that was less than what Saric sought. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an award of family provision that exceeded the defendant's offer of compromise, and whether such an award would be more favourable than the defendant's offer under the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The court considered the relevant rule, specifically rule 26.08(3), which provides that where the plaintiff's claim for family provision is not more favourable than the defendant's offer of compromise, the court must consider whether it is just to award costs to the plaintiff. The court examined the nature and extent of the parties' respective claims and offers, and the implications of the rule for the determination of costs. In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the family provision process does not become overly adversarial, and that offers of compromise are given due consideration.

Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim for family provision was not more favourable than the defendant's offer of compromise, and that the award of costs to the plaintiff would not be just. The court therefore declined to award costs to the plaintiff, instead emphasising the importance of the parties working together to resolve their dispute in a manner that is fair and reasonable. The final orders of the court reflected this approach, with the court declining to make any orders as to costs.