Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Estate of Melville Gooley [2021] NSWSC 268 Hearing dates: 16 March 2021 Date of orders: 16 March 2021 Decision date: 16 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List Before: Sackar J Decision: Correction to [29] of costs judgment Catchwords: SUCCESSION — Contested probate — Testamentary capacity — whether costs should be paid out of the estate or no order as to costs Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Estate of Melville Gooley [2021] NSWSC 228 (COSTS) Gooley v Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Aleta Joy Gooley (first plaintiff) Melinda Louise Foley (second plaintiff) Brett Raymond Gooley (defendant) Representation: Counsel: S Chapple (first plaintiff) Ms R Bianchi (second plaintiff) J Knackstredt (defendant) Solicitors: Glass Goodwin (first plaintiff) Southern Waters Legal (second plaintiff) Macpherson Kelley (defendant) File Number(s): 2018/63881 Judgment 1. I gave principal judgment in this matter on 12 February 2021 (Gooley v Gooley [2021] NSWSC 56). On 9 March 2021 I heard the parties as to costs and on 15 March 2021 I gave a judgment on that issue (Estate of Melville Gooley [2021] NSWSC 228). 2. In a directions hearing on 16 March, the parties directed me to a potential ambiguity in the wording of the phrase at [29] of the costs judgment that reads: "I consider it fair in all the circumstances that they pay the costs of the litigation agreed or taxed personally on an ordinary basis". They requested formal clarification of this order under the slip rule, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r.36.17. 3. The parties prepared a short minute of order replacing that sentence with "I consider it fair in all the circumstances that I make no order as to their costs such that they will pay their own costs of the litigation personally." I made those orders on 18 March and additionally write this judgment for clarity. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 30 March 2021