SAUNDERS -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2015] WASCA 203 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 203 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:16/2014	Heard:	DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	BUSS JA BEECH J MITCHELL J	Delivered:	20/11/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appellant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	VALERIE SAUNDERS THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE DAVID HOFFMAN JUDITH MARGARET HOFFMAN
Catchwords:	Costs Whether appellant should pay the respondents' costs Costs in an unsuccessful appeal from grant of probate
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1)
Case References:	Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Prichard v Prichard [2015] WASC 170 (S) Re Green (decd); Lloyd v Green (1969) WAR 67 Roebuck v Smoje [2001] WASC 95 The State of Western Australia v Collard [2015] WASCA 86 Veall v Veall (No 2) [2015] VSCA 122 Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5 (S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SAUNDERS -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE [2015] WASCA 203 (S) CORAM : BUSS JA

BEECH J

MITCHELL J

HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 16 of 2014 BETWEEN : VALERIE SAUNDERS

Appellant

AND

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE

First Respondent

DAVID HOFFMAN

Second Respondent

JUDITH MARGARET HOFFMAN

Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : EM HEENAN J

Citation : THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE -v- ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION INC [2014] WASC 17

File No : CIV 1154 of 2010

Catchwords:

Costs - Whether appellant should pay the respondents' costs - Costs in an unsuccessful appeal from grant of probate

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 66 r 1(1)

Result:

Appellant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Ms C F Holyoak-Roberts

Second Respondent : Mr R J Nash

Third Respondent : In person

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Public Trustee (WA)

Second Respondent : Public Trustee (WA)

Third Respondent : In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Prichard v Prichard [2015] WASC 170 (S)
Re Green (decd); Lloyd v Green (1969) WAR 67
Roebuck v Smoje [2001] WASC 95
The State of Western Australia v Collard [2015] WASCA 86
Veall v Veall (No 2) [2015] VSCA 122
Vincent v Close [2014] WASC 5 (S)

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 6 October 2015, this court dismissed the appellant's appeal from orders granting probate of the will of Alexa Hoffman to the first respondent. At that time, orders were made for the parties to file minutes of proposed costs orders, and associated affidavits and submissions, and for the question of costs…

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 Saunders v The Public Trustee

Details

AGLC: Saunders v The Public Trustee [2015] WASCA 203 (S)
Case: [2015] WASCA 203 (S)
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saunders v The Public Trustee involved a dispute over costs, specifically whether the appellant should pay the respondents' costs in an unsuccessful appeal against the grant of probate. The respondents, The Public Trustee and the Public Trustee of Queensland, were the executors of a will and had been granted probate. The appellant, who contested the will, was unsuccessful in their appeal against this decision. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appellant should bear the costs of the respondents' successful appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the costs of the respondents' successful appeal. This question involved an examination of the principles governing costs in the context of appeals from grants of probate, as well as the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court needed to balance the interests of the parties and the public interest in ensuring that the administration of estates is efficient and fair.

In determining the appropriate outcome, the court considered the nature of the appeal, the conduct of the parties, and the principles of costs in probate appeals. The court concluded that, given the unsuccessful nature of the appeal and the public interest in the efficient administration of estates, it was appropriate for the appellant to bear the costs of the respondents' successful appeal. This decision was based on the principle that costs should follow the event, and the appellant's unsuccessful appeal warranted such an outcome.

The High Court ordered that the appellant should pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal, reflecting the court's view that the appellant should bear the financial burden of their unsuccessful challenge to the grant of probate. This decision reinforces the principle that costs should generally follow the event in probate appeals, ensuring that the administration of estates is not unduly burdened by protracted and unsuccessful litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal

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.