Legal Research
Cases
SZOMBATHY v The Public Trustee as Executor of the estate of Margit Lidia SZOMBATHY (Dec)

SZOMBATHY v The Public Trustee as Executor of the estate of Margit Lidia SZOMBATHY (Dec)

Case [2002] WASC 89 22 April 2002

Costs

Jurisdiction

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972

Offer of Compromise

Discretionary Costs Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SZOMBATHY -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE as Executor of the estate of MARGIT LIDIA SZOMBATHY (DEC) & ORS [2002] WASC 89

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 89
Case No:	CIV:1063/1998	Heard:	15-18 APRIL 2002
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	22/04/02
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff ordered to pay 50 per cent of the defendants' costs after rejection of defendants' compromise offer
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LAJOS SZOMBATHY THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE as Executor of the estate of MARGIT LIDIA SZOMBATHY (DEC) ERZSIKE ILDIKO SZOMBATHY MARIKA ANIKO SZOMBATHY IBOLYA ENIKO SZOMBATHY MARGARET EMESE SZOMBATHY ANDRAS SZOMBATHY KATALIN SZOMBATHY
Catchwords:	Costs Inheritance action Plaintiff's claim succeeded Ordered a sum of money but less than that offered to him pretrial Effect on costs
Legislation:	Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6) Rules of the Supreme Court, O 24A r 10(5)
Case References:	Dobb v Hacket & Ors (1993) 10 WAR 532 Fisher & Anor v Fisher & Ors [2001] WASC 338 Kimberley v Butcher [2001] WASC 118 O'Brien v Trustees of WA Ltd & Anor [2000] WASC 33 Re De Feu (Dec) [1964] VR 420 Szombathy v The Public Trustee & Ors [2000] WASC 202 Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Eurotime Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] WASCA 384 Morgan v Johnson (1998) 44 NSWLR 578 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SZOMBATHY -v- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE as Executor of the estate of MARGIT LIDIA SZOMBATHY (DEC) & ORS [2002] WASC 89 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 15-18 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 22 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1063 of 1998 BETWEEN : LAJOS SZOMBATHY

Plaintiff

AND

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE as Executor of the estate of MARGIT LIDIA SZOMBATHY (DEC)

First Defendant

ERZSIKE ILDIKO SZOMBATHY

MARIKA ANIKO SZOMBATHY

IBOLYA ENIKO SZOMBATHY

MARGARET EMESE SZOMBATHY

Second Defendants

ANDRAS SZOMBATHY

Third Defendant

KATALIN SZOMBATHY

Fourth Defendant

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Costs - Inheritance action - Plaintiff's claim succeeded - Ordered a sum of money but less than that offered to him pretrial - Effect on costs

Legislation:

Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA), s 14(6)

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 24A r 10(5)

Result:

Plaintiff ordered to pay 50 per cent of the defendants' costs after rejection of defendants' compromise offer

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr J C Curthoys

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendants : No appearance

Third Defendant : Mr A J N Aristei

Fourth Defendant : Mr A J N Aristei

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Stephen Browne Lawyers

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendants : Galic & Co

Third Defendant : Tolson & Co

Fourth Defendant : Tolson & Co

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

Dobb v Hacket & Ors (1993) 10 WAR 532
Fisher & Anor v Fisher & Ors [2001] WASC 338
Kimberley v Butcher [2001] WASC 118

(Page 3)

O'Brien v Trustees of WA Ltd…

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 SZOMBATHY v The Public Trustee as Executor of the estate of...

Details

AGLC: SZOMBATHY v The Public Trustee as Executor of the estate of Margit Lidia SZOMBATHY (Dec) [2002] WASC 89
Case: [2002] WASC 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SZOMBATHY v The Public Trustee as Executor of the estate of MARGIT LIDIA SZOMBATHY (Dec) dealt with a claim under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 by Lajos Szombathy against the estate of his late mother, Margret Lidia Szombathy. Lajos sought provision for his maintenance from the estate, which was contested by his brother Andras and niece Katalin. The dispute centred on the fairness and reasonableness of the provision made for Lajos in the will and whether the estate should bear the costs of the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Master Bredmeyer, considered the merits of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the impact of costs on the plaintiff's financial situation.

The key legal issues included the application of costs rules in inheritance actions, the impact of a rejected offer of compromise on costs, and the discretion of the court in determining costs in such cases. The court had to balance the statutory discretion under the Act with the procedural rules set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court, specifically Order 24A, rule 10(5), which addresses the consequences of rejecting a compromise offer.

Master Bredmeyer ruled that the plaintiff's claim was reasonable and succeeded to some extent, but his rejection of a substantial compromise offer made by the defendants in 1999 warranted a costs penalty. The court found that the offer was reasonable and that rejecting it without a justifiable reason led to the plaintiff bearing part of the defendants' costs from the date of the offer. However, given Lajos's financial hardship, the court decided to mitigate the costs penalty by ordering him to pay only 50% of the defendants' costs from the date of the rejected offer until judgment. The court also noted the inappropriate use of interrogatories in the case and decided not to award costs in relation to them.

In summary, the court ordered that the estate pay the costs of the second defendants, the plaintiff to bear 50% of the third and fourth defendants' costs from the date of the rejected offer, and no costs to be awarded in relation to the interrogatories. This decision highlights the court's discretion in inheritance actions to consider the financial circumstances of the parties and the reasonableness of their conduct in determining costs.

Orders