Talbot v Talbot

[2017] NZHC 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CIV-2015-476-000037 [2017] NZHC 832

UNDER	the Family Protection Act 1955
BETWEEN	JILLIAN KATE TALBOT Plaintiff
AND	GRAHAM EDWIN LAWRENCE TALBOT (AS EXECUTOR FOR THE WILL OF EDWIN KELLAND TALBOT) First Defendant
AND	GRAHAM EDWIN LAWRENCE TALBOT (AS EXECUTOR FOR THE WILL OF PAMELA LISBETH TALBOT) Second Defendant

Hearing:

Dealt with on the papers

Counsel:

E J Horner and L D Tidey for Plaintiff
A J Shaw for First and Second Defendants

J Ormsby and H T Shaw for GEL Talbot (in his personal capacity)

RLD Paul for R L Cashin

Judgment:

28 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J As to Costs

Introduction

[1]      This judgment relates to the quantum of costs to be awarded against the plaintiff in this proceeding.

[2]      On 6 October 2016 I issued a judgment in this proceeding dismissing an application by the plaintiff Jillian Kate Talbot (Jillian) for further provision under the Family Protection Act 1955 (the Act) which she was seeking from the estates of her

late parents.   Jillian’s unsuccessful application had been opposed by her brother

TALBOT v TALBOT) [2017] NZHC 832 [28 April 2017]

Graham Edwin Lawrence Talbot (Graham) in his personal capacity and by her sister Rachel  Louise  Cashin  (Rachel).   The named first  and  second  defendant  in  this proceeding Graham, in his capacity as executor of the estates of his late mother and father took the position that the estates would simply abide the decision of this Court.

[3]      In my 6 October 2016 substantive decision in this proceeding I reserved costs so counsel could make further submissions on that issue.

[4]      Those further submissions were made and  then, on 23  February 2017,  I

issued a costs judgment which specifically made the following orders:

(a)      As to Graham’s personal costs as a beneficiary in the estates, Jillian is to pay reasonable costs on the basis of Graham’s claimed category 2B scale costs, together with an appropriate uplift, and his reasonable disbursements.

(b)      As to Rachel’s costs, Jillian is to pay on an indemnity basis Rachel’s

reasonable costs and disbursements with respect to this proceeding.

(c)      As to Graham’s costs and disbursements in his capacity as executor of the estates (as the first and second defendant), Jillian is to pay the reasonable indemnity costs and disbursements of the estates appropriately incurred with respect to the proceeding.

[5]      In  making the costs orders outlined at para [4] above I made directions regarding the filing of further submissions by counsel relating to the quantum of the awards to be made.

[6]      Subsequently, counsel have now filed additional memoranda directed at these issues of quantum. These memoranda are:

(a)      Memorandum  dated  1   March  2017  from  counsel  for  Graham personally as a beneficiary in the estates.

(b)      Memorandum dated 7 March 2017 from counsel for Rachel.

(c)       Memorandum dated 8 March 2017 from counsel for Graham in his

capacity as executor of his parents’ estates.

(d)Memorandum dated 16 March 2017 in reply from counsel for the plaintiff.