Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 4)

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 800

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

1 July 2021

Decision date:

01 July 2021

Jurisdiction:

Equity

Before:

Robb J

Decision:

The second defendant's application for orders for her costs of the proceedings is dismissed.

Catchwords:

COSTS — Party/Party — Self represented litigant — Where the second defendant sought costs orders against the bankrupt first defendant and in the alternative against the estate of his deceased mother on the basis that property vested in the first defendant’s trustees in bankruptcy should be treated as part of the estate — Where the second defendant had filed a submitting appearance — Where the second defendant had incurred costs in making an application for leave to apply for family provision relief out of time — Where the second defendant had not prosecuted the application for leave — Where otherwise no relief had been sought by or against the second defendant — Where the Court found that the second defendant was entitled to seek legal advice as to the significance of the steps being taken by other parties in the proceedings, but at her own cost — Where the Court dismissed the application for costs

Legislation Cited:

Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Stojanovski v Stojanovski [2019] NSWSC 1713

Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1540

Category:

Costs

Parties:

Steven Stojanovski (plaintiff)
Robert Stojanovski (first defendant)
Jovanka Stojanovski (second defendant)
Jordan Stojanovski (third defendant)
Angelina Stojanovski (fourth defendant/cross-defendant)
Fabian Kane Micheletto (fifth defendant/first cross-claimant)
Michael Carrafa (sixth defendant/second cross-claimant)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Stojanovski (self) (second defendant)

Solicitors:
One Group Legal (plaintiff)
ICL Lawyers (fourth defendant/first cross defendant)
Polczynski Robinson (fifth and sixth defendants / first and second cross-claimants)

File Number(s):

2012/89349

Judgment

1. These reasons deal with an outstanding costs claim in these proceedings, being a claim by the second defendant, Jovanka, who was the plaintiff’s wife.

2. Jovanka's claim is dealt with at [235]-[256] of my reasons for judgment on the costs issue in these proceedings: see Stojanovski v Stojanovski (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1540 (cost judgment).

3. In these brief reasons, I will assume knowledge of that judgment and in particular the reasons that related to Jovanka's application.

4. As stated at [255], I did not then dismiss Jovanka's costs claim, as she was self-represented, and there were a number of issues that had not properly been dealt with in her application for costs. I made an order giving Jovanka an opportunity to provide further submissions to the Court.

5. Jovanka took that opportunity by further written submissions dated 23 November 2020.

6. The only other additional submissions were those made on behalf of the trustees dated 7 December 2020. The trustees' submissions have been helpful to the Court, but they only related to one of the alternative costs orders sought by Jovanka.

7. With one exception, all of the costs orders sought by Jovanka were against Robert. Jovanka sought costs orders against Robert personally either on the indemnity or the…