Williams v Robba (No 2)

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.