Williams v Robba (No 2) - [2025] QSC 228

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Robba (No 2) [2025] QSC 228

PARTIES:

PAUL FRANCIS WILLIAMS

First applicant

MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Second applicant

v

JAMES ROBBA

First respondent

MORGAN LANE

Second respondent

GAYLE DIANNE WILLIAMS

Third respondent

FILE NO:

BS 15647 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Hindman J

ORDER:

1. The applicants are to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

2. No order as to costs in relation to the third respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the applicants unsuccessfully sought review of a decision made by the respondent trustees – where the trustees seek an order that costs be paid by the applicants on an indemnity basis – where the trustees had corresponded with the applicants about the application’s lack of prospects and foreshadowed seeking costs on an indemnity basis – where the trustees submit that the fund should not be further depleted – where the applicants seek an order that costs be paid from the trust fund on a standard basis – where the applicants submit that their conduct in the proceeding was reasonable and that the proceeding was for the benefit of their disabled brother – whether indemnity costs should be awarded – whether the trustees’ costs ought be paid from the trust fund

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), s. 681(1)

Armstrong v Boulton [1990] VR 215, cited
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, cited

West v Blackgrove [2012] QCA 321, cited

COUNSEL:

M R Bland for the first and second respondents

No appearance for the third respondent

SOLICITORS:

Muir Legal for the applicants
QBM Lawyers for the first and second respondents
No appearance for the third respondent

Decision on costs

By decision published 26 August 2025 the originating application brought by Paul Francis Williams and Mark Anthony Williams (together, the applicants), seeking, in summary, a review and directions by the Court under sections 8(1) and 94(1) of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) in respect of a determination made by the trustees of the Boosey Doherty Superannuation Fund (the Fund) as to the payout of the residual death benefit of Anthony Vincent Williams under the Fund (the Determination), was dismissed. It was found that there were no proper grounds for the Court to review the Determination, in particular the trustees of the Fund had not failed to exercise real and genuine consideration in making the Determination.
The active respondents to the proceeding were the trustees of the Fund - James Robba and Morgan Lane, the second and third respondents (the Trustees).
The third respondent was not an active participant in the proceeding; nor have any submissions in respect of costs been made in relation to the third respondent. There will be no 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 Williams v Robba (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Williams v Robba (No 2) [2025] QSC 228
Case: [2025] QSC 228
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Williams, sought to challenge the decisions made by the respondent trustees in relation to their disabled brother’s trust fund. The respondents sought an order that the applicants pay their costs on an indemnity basis. The applicants counter-applied for their costs to be paid on a standard basis, and that any costs paid were to be drawn from the trust fund. The applicants submitted that their conduct in the proceeding was reasonable, and that the proceeding was for the benefit of their disabled brother. The respondents argued that the applicants’ conduct was unreasonable, that the proceeding was lacking in prospects, and that the trust fund should not be further depleted. The applicants appealed against the orders made by the primary judge.

The court considered whether indemnity costs should be awarded and whether the trustees’ costs ought be paid from the trust fund. The court held that the applicants’ appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, and that the proceeding was lacking in prospects. The court held that the applicants’ conduct was unreasonable and vexatious. The court held that the applicants’ submissions that their conduct was reasonable, and that the proceeding was for the benefit of their disabled brother, were without merit. The court held that indemnity costs were not appropriate, and that the trustees’ costs should be paid from the applicants.

The applicants are to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. No order is to be made as to costs in relation to the third respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants are to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.

2. No order as to costs in relation to the third respondent.

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.

CITATION:	Williams v Robba (No 2) [2025] QSC 228
PARTIES:	PAUL FRANCIS WILLIAMS First applicant MARK ANTHONY WILLIAMS Second applicant v JAMES ROBBA First respondent MORGAN LANE Second respondent GAYLE DIANNE WILLIAMS Third respondent
FILE NO:	BS 15647 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Hindman J
ORDER:	1. The applicants are to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the proceeding on the standard basis. 2. No order as to costs in relation to the third respondent.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the applicants unsuccessfully sought review of a decision made by the respondent trustees – where the trustees seek an order that costs be paid by the applicants on an indemnity basis – where the trustees had corresponded with the applicants about the application’s lack of prospects and foreshadowed seeking costs on an indemnity basis – where the trustees submit that the fund should not be further depleted – where the applicants seek an order that costs be paid from the trust fund on a standard basis – where the applicants submit that their conduct in the proceeding was reasonable and that the proceeding was for the benefit of their disabled brother – whether indemnity costs should be awarded – whether the trustees’ costs ought be paid from the trust fund Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), s. 681(1) Armstrong v Boulton [1990] VR 215, cited Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534, cited West v Blackgrove [2012] QCA 321, cited
COUNSEL:	M R Bland for the first and second respondents No appearance for the third respondent
SOLICITORS:	Muir Legal for the applicants QBM Lawyers for the first and second respondents No appearance for the third respondent