| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE LIST
S CI 2016 00704
IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), and the will and estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE, deceased
- and –
IN THE MATTER of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), and the will and estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, deceased
-and-
IN THE MATTER of s 175 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
BETWEEN:
| ROBERT EDMUND WINTER-COOKE | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| SAMUEL MARCUS WINTER-COOKE (as executor and trustee of the estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, and as executor and trustee of the estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE) and others according to the attached schedule | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | McMillan J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | On the papers |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 17 August 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Winter-Cooke (No 3) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VSC 468 |
---
COSTS – Where defendants successful – No submissions from plaintiff on costs – Whether costs should follow the event – No conduct found to displace ordinary principle that costs follow the event – Whether financial disparity between parties relevant to costs decision – Plaintiff to bear costs of defendants and his own costs – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24 – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ord 63 – Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 – Northern Territory v Sangare (2019) 265 CLR 164.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Constable Connor & Co Pty Ltd | |
| For the Defendants | Kathy Wilson Legal |
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
BETWEEN:
| ROBERT EDMUND WINTER-COOKE | Plaintiff |
| - and - | |
| SAMUEL MARCUS WINTER-COOKE (as executor and trustee of the estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, and as executor and trustee of the estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE) | First defendant |
| CATHARINE FRANCES WINTER-COOKE (as executor and trustee of the estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, and as executor and trustee of the estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE) | Second defendant |
| PHILIPPA ROSEMARY RISBEY (as executor and trustee of the estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, and as executor and trustee of the estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE) | Third defendant |
| WINTER COOKE (MURNDAL) PTY LTD (ACN 004 314 443) (as executor and trustee of the estate of MARCIA WILSHIRE WINTER-COOKE, and as executor and trustee of the estate of SAMUEL ROBERT WINTER-COOKE) | Fourth defendant |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
Samuel Robert Winter-Cooke died on 7 January 2008 (‘the deceased’). He was survived by his wife, Catharine Frances Winter-Cooke (‘Catharine’), and their four children: Samuel Marcus Winter-Cooke (‘Marcus’), Philippa Risbey, Robert Winter-Cooke (‘the plaintiff’) and Arbella Winter-Cooke.
The defendants are the executors and trustees of the estate of the deceased: Marcus (first defendant), Catharine (second defendant), Philippa (third defendant), and Winter Cooke (Murndal) Pty Ltd (fourth defendant). They are also the executors and trustees of the estate of the deceased’s mother, Marcia Wilshire Winter-Cooke (‘Marcia’).
On 26 February 2016, the plaintiff filed an originating motion commencing the proceeding which sought,…
Continue reading Re Winter-Cooke (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Winter-Cooke (No 3) [2022] VSC 468
- Case
- [2022] VSC 468
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the relevant legal principles, including the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 24, the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) ord 63, and the decisions in Oshlack v Richmond River Council and Northern Territory v Sangare. The court found no misconduct by either party that would warrant a deviation from the usual principle that costs follow the event. It also held that while financial disparity between the parties could be a relevant factor, it was not determinative in this case. The court concluded that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the defendants and his own costs.
In light of the above, the court ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the defendants and his own costs. This decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislation and legal precedents, and took into account the circumstances of the case, including the financial disparity between the parties. The order reflects the court's view that, in the absence of any misconduct or other exceptional circumstances, the usual principle that costs follow the event should apply.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.