Robinson v Jones (No 2)

In the case of Robinson v Jones (No 2), the plaintiffs sought to propound an informal document as the deceased's informal will, or alternatively, the deceased's earlier duly executed will. The application was made to the court after the plaintiffs had been appointed as administrators of the estate under a limited grant. The primary dispute centred on whether the informal document could be accepted as the deceased's will and the exercise of the plaintiffs' powers under the limited grant.

The legal issues before the court included the proper interpretation of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014 in the context of the plaintiffs' application to propound the informal document. The court had to determine whether the informal document could be accepted as the deceased's will and, if not, whether the plaintiffs' powers under the limited grant were properly exercised. The court also had to consider the appropriate costs associated with the application.

The court declined to propound the informal document as the deceased's will, highlighting that the plaintiffs had not addressed the concerns raised by the court. The court emphasised that costs should be reasonable and proportionate, in line with the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the case of Yara Australia Pty Ltd v Oswal. The court further noted that the plaintiffs had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their exercise of powers, as required by the Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014, r 5.02. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiffs' costs application should be considered, ensuring that any costs awarded were reasonable and proportionate.

The court did not award costs to the plaintiffs, considering their failure to address the court's concerns adequately. The plaintiffs were ordered to bear their own costs of the application.