Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Family provision — Costs — Prospective costs capping orders — Novel contested application for costs capping in small estate post-mediation and prior to completion of interlocutory steps before allocation of any hearing date — No precedents of contested family provision capping orders being made at an early interlocutory stages — Parties’ current actual costs total $62,416 incl GST being approximately 46% of net estate of $135,674 — Held cost capping order is appropriate (amount that any party may recover from any other party, or out of the estate in these proceedings limited to $22,500 incl GST) SUCCESSION — Family provision — Prospective costs capping —Examination of and guidance regarding costs capping in civil litigation— Examination of family provision costs by reference to nature and purpose of the jurisdiction legislative and practice provisions, differences between family provision costs and costs in other civil litigation SUCCESSION — Family provision — Examination of historical antecedents of costs capping following final hearing of family provision claims — Consideration of quantum of costs in “standard” family provision and ‘uplift’ referable to success in conditional cost agreements SUCCESSION — Family provision — Prospective costs capping — Consideration and discussion of costs capping at early interlocutory stage — Consideration of what is ‘proper’ and ‘proportionate’ — The basis for early interlocutory capping may be justified by various sources including r 42.4 UCPR, s 98(1)(b),(3) CPA and s 99 Succession Act — Evidentiary and other materials discussed SUCCESSION — Family provision — Prospective costs capping — Prospective capping must be legally principled and involves an evaluative determination of relevant matters including proportionality considerations rather than being determined by fixed percentages or rules of thumb — The capping power serves various objectives including ensuring that the purposes of family provision jurisdiction are not frustrated or thwarted —There needs to be a sufficiency of materials on which the Court is able to make the evaluative assessment in which having regard to the nature of the process precision or exactitude is not possible or warranted and there may be a range of appropriate capping outcomes based on the evaluative assessment. SUCCESSION — Family provision — Prospective costs capping — interlocutory costs capping orders under UCPR r 42.4 are subject to later variation where there are ‘special reasons, and it is in the interests of justice to do so’ — Comment (obiter) regarding ‘special reasons’ and ‘interests of justice’ SUCCESSION — Family provision — Discussion of party and practitioner obligations in light of legislative reform and cost concerns especially in small estates WORDS AND PHRASES — ‘Proportionality’, ‘Costs capping’ ‘Maximum costs’ ‘Protective costs order’