Skaftouros v Dimos (No 2) - [2002] VSC 219

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5667 of 2001

IN THE MATTER of the Will of Dimitrios Skaftouros (deceased)
AND IN THE MATTER of Section 34 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

LEE ANTHONY SKAFTOUROS AND ORS	Plaintiffs
v
LEO DIMOS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 May 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 May 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Skaftouros v Dimos (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 219

---

Administration and Probate – removal of executor – final orders – costs as between solicitor and client.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr C. Gunst QC with Mr M. Simon	Woodhams O’Keeffe
For the Defendant	Mr R. Berglund QC with Ms C. Sparke	Leo Dimos & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

I will deal with each of these orders in turn. The first order sought by the plaintiffs has not been the subject of any debate as to its form, however, I think that I prefer to express it in these terms: (I will make two orders)

1.The defendant Leo Dimos be this day removed from the office of executor of the will and estate of Dimitrios Skaftouros deceased pursuant to s. 34(1)(c) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.
2.Insofar as necessary the defendant be this day removed as trustee of the said estate, or any part thereof of which he is or has become Trustee, including specifically the monies held for the infant beneficiaries, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Having been handed a consent of Trust Company of Australia Limited to act as Trustee of the above estate or - I think the correct terminology is administrator - I will have that placed on the file.

The third order will be that Trust Company of Australia Limited be appointed administrator of the Will and estate of Dimitrious Skaftouros deceased in place of the executor so removed.

I think it is a matter for the beneficiaries; Ms Sparke mentioned that the defendant wished to contend that State Trustees would be appropriate but I have got no evidence before me that there is any difference, and I think it is primarily a matter for the plaintiffs so I am content to make that order.

The defendant has said that the week proposed by the plaintiffs for delivering up of the books, records, moneys titles and other things is insufficient. I entirely reject that submission. Of course it is a matter of priorities and I appreciate that the defendant is a sole practitioner, but he does have staff. In any event the priorities which have been ignored in the past will now have to be placed to the forefront and I will make the order as sought.

4.That the defendant forthwith and not later than 4 p.m. on 7 June 2002 deliver up to the Administrator at its office at 151 Rathdowne Street Carlton Victoria, all books, records, documents, moneys,…

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 Skaftouros v Dimos (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Skaftouros v Dimos (No 2) [2002] VSC 219
Case: [2002] VSC 219
Decision Date: 31 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Skaftouros v Dimos (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Skaftouros, and the defendant, Dimos, who was an executor of a deceased estate. Skaftouros sought the removal of Dimos as an executor and, subsequently, final orders concerning the estate's administration. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the authority of the court to remove an executor and the appropriate allocation of costs between the solicitor and client in the context of such proceedings.

The court was required to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to remove Dimos as an executor. It also needed to determine the appropriate costs order in the context of the solicitor and client relationship, particularly focusing on whether Skaftouros was entitled to recover costs from Dimos. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to provide clarity on these matters. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the removal of Dimos as an executor. However, it did address the issue of costs, ruling that Skaftouros was entitled to recover certain costs from Dimos. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the statutory framework governing the administration of estates and the principles governing solicitor-client costs.

In summary, the court ruled that Dimos was not to be removed as an executor but that Skaftouros was entitled to recover certain legal costs from Dimos. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal principles governing the removal of executors and the allocation of costs between a solicitor and client in estate administration matters.

Orders