Legal Research
Cases
Robinson v Jones (No 4)

Robinson v Jones (No 4)

Case [2016] VSC 160 15 April 2016

Costs

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROBATE LIST

S PRB 2014 11075

JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON (in his capacity as executor of the will and estate of BRUCE DESMOND ANDREWS, deceased)	First Plaintiff
SIMON JOHN RALEIGH (in his capacity as executor of the will and estate of BRUCE DESMOND ANDREWS, deceased)	Second Plaintiff
v
JENNIFER LEE JONES	First Defendant
VICTORIAN ANIMAL AID TRUST	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 April 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Robinson v Jones (No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 160

---

COSTS — Where plaintiffs’ application to propound informal document refused — Where the Court requested parties to provide particulars of costs — Whether costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute — Civil Procedure Act 2010, s 24.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Horgan QC with	Best Hooper
Mr G S Baker
For the First Defendant	Ms U Stanisich	Henderson & Ball Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	Mr Wallace	Hentys Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Background

On 3 April 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application for a limited grant of administration ad colligendum bona in the estate of the deceased, who died on 8 March 2013. The application for the limited grant included a copy of the deceased’s will dated 26 June 2012 (‘the June 2012 will’) and an unexecuted draft document (‘the informal document’) said by the plaintiffs to have been verbally approved by the deceased in a telephone call with his solicitor, the first plaintiff (‘Mr Robinson’), on 1 March 2013. Both documents named the plaintiffs as executors of the estate of the deceased.

Jennifer Lee Jones (‘Ms Jones’) is named as a beneficiary under the June 2012 will, receiving 20 per cent of the residue of the estate, but is not named in the informal document. The Victorian Animal Aid Trust (‘the VAAT’)[1] and Ms Jones’ son-in-law, Mr Robert Alan Couzens (‘Mr Couzens’), are named as beneficiaries in the informal document receiving between them the 20 per cent share that was previously left to Ms Jones. Mr Couzens is to receive the sum of $500,000 and the VAAT is to receive the balance of the 20 per cent share. Neither Mr Couzens nor the VAAT are named as beneficiaries in the June 2012 will.
[1]The VAAT was added as a defendant to the proceeding pursuant to orders made by the Court of Appeal in Victorian Animal Aid Trust v Robinson [2014] VSCA (Unreported, ex tempore judgment, 28 November 2014) [8]-[15] (Neave JA, Ginnane and Sloss AJJA). Supreme Court proceeding S APC 2014 0140.

By application filed 29 July 2014, the plaintiffs made application for a grant of probate of the informal document, pursuant to s 9(1) of the Wills Act 1997, alternatively, the June 2012 will (‘the probate proceeding’).[2]
[2]Supreme Court proceeding S PRB 2014 11075.

The probate proceeding was commenced by originating motion filed…

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 Robinson v Jones (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Jones (No 4) [2016] VSC 160
Case: [2016] VSC 160
Decision Date: 15 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Robinson v Jones, the plaintiffs sought to propound an informal document to the defendants, which was refused by the court. Both parties were subsequently requested by the court to provide particulars of costs. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the costs incurred by the plaintiffs were reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and the principles guiding the assessment of costs in civil litigation. It examined the nature and scope of the dispute, the procedural steps taken by the parties, and the proportionality of the costs in relation to the issues contested. The court found that the costs claimed by the plaintiffs did not align with the requirements set out in the Act and were not proportionate to the issues in dispute. As a result, the plaintiffs' application for costs was dismissed.

The court held that the plaintiffs' costs were excessive and not reasonably related to the matters in contention. It emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing costs in civil proceedings and underscored the necessity for parties to justify their cost claims in light of the issues at stake. The court ordered that the plaintiffs bear their own costs of the application for costs.

Orders