Verney v Verney - [2016] WASC 110

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: VERNEY -v- VERNEY [2016] WASC 110

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 6 APRIL 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 1192 of 2014

BETWEEN: MURRAY PAUL VERNEY as intending administrator of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
First Plaintiff
CRAIG MORRIS VERNEY as intending administrator of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Second Plaintiff
ANNETTE GAYE VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Third Plaintiff
LOUISE BARBARA VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Fourth Plaintiff
EVETTE MARCIA VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Fifth Plaintiff
AND
TERRENCE JOHN VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
First Defendant
RODNEY NOEL VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Second Defendant
GREGORY IAN VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Third Defendant
SANDRA KATHLEEN SLATER as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Fourth Defendant
PETER ALBERT VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Fifth Defendant
YVONNE LILA VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Sixth Defendant
FIONA NOELEEN GALEA as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Seventh Defendant
PAUL DOUGLAS VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Eighth Defendant
NAOMI JANINE McCOOKE as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Ninth Defendant
MATTHEW MARTIN VERNEY as beneficiary of the estate of BARBARA CONSTANCE VERNEY (Dec)
Tenth Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Assessment by judge rather than by taxation to preserve modest estate - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

First - fifth plaintiffs' costs assessed at $30,147.10

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     Mr D J Kirchner
Second Plaintiff            :     Mr D J Kirchner
Third Plaintiff               :     Mr D J Kirchner
Fourth Plaintiff             :     Mr D J Kirchner
Fifth Plaintiff                :     Mr D J Kirchner
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant           :     In person
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     In person
Sixth Defendant            :     In person
Seventh Defendant        :     In person
Eighth Defendant          :     In person
Ninth Defendant           :     In person
Tenth Defendant           :     In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     Templar Legal Pty Ltd
Second Plaintiff            :     Templar Legal Pty Ltd
Third Plaintiff               :     Templar Legal Pty Ltd
Fourth Plaintiff             :     Templar Legal Pty Ltd
Fifth Plaintiff                :     Templar Legal Pty Ltd
First Defendant             :     In person
Second Defendant         :     In person
Third Defendant           :     In person
Fourth Defendant          :     In person
Fifth Defendant            :     In person
Sixth Defendant            :     In person
Seventh Defendant        :     In person
Eighth Defendant          :     In person
Ninth Defendant           :     In person
Tenth Defendant           :     In person

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

Nil

MARTIN CJ: These proceedings have a long and chequered history which it is unnecessary to recount for present purposes. It is sufficient to observe that…

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 Verney v Verney

Details

AGLC: Verney v Verney [2016] WASC 110
Case: [2016] WASC 110
Decision Date: 6 APRIL 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, the case of Verney v Verney involved a dispute between the parties regarding the distribution of the estate of a deceased individual. The primary issue was the assessment of costs related to the proceedings. The appellant, the deceased's widow, sought to challenge the assessment of costs by the trial judge, who had decided to assess the costs directly rather than employing the taxation process to preserve the modest estate of the deceased. The respondent argued that the judge's decision was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's decision to assess the costs directly was justified. The court needed to determine whether the judge had acted within their discretion in making this decision and whether the judge's approach was appropriate under the specific circumstances of the case. The widow contended that the judge had erred in not following the usual taxation process, while the respondent maintained that the judge's direct assessment of costs was within their discretion and was appropriate to ensure the estate was preserved.

The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in assessing the costs directly rather than through taxation. The judge's decision was influenced by the need to preserve the modest estate and to prevent any unnecessary burden on the estate. The court held that the judge's approach was in line with the principles of fairness and justice, and it was not an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appeal against the costs assessment was dismissed.

Orders