Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Katramados v Hasapis (No 6) [2022] NSWSC 642 Hearing dates: 3 February 2022 Decision date: 23 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Robb J Decision: See par [23] below Catchwords: SUCCESSION — family provision — complete determination of final substantive and costs orders to be made following earlier judgments — no point of principle Cases Cited: Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Julia Katramados (Plaintiff) Despina Hasapis (First Defendant) Adriana Kalantzis (Second Defendant) Maria Kalantzis (Third Defendant) Vassilis Kalantzis (Fourth Defendant) Gordon Albert Salier AM (Administrator) Joanne Sharah & Associates (Costs Applicant) Representation: Counsel: D Williams (Costs Applicant) Solicitors: First Choice Family Lawyers (Plaintiff) Excused (First Defendant) Self-represented (Second Defendant) Excused (Third Defendant) Self-represented (Fourth Defendant) P B Ritz Lawyers (Administrator) Joanne Sharah & Associates (Costs Applicant) File Number(s): 2015/374480 Judgment 1. On 16 December 2021, I published my fifth judgment in these proceedings: Katramados v Hasapis (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1656. Given the history of these proceedings, it is perhaps not surprising that my claim that that judgment should be the final judgment in the proceedings was overly optimistic. 2. At J [106], I set out orders that I proposed to make to finally deal with the proceedings but gave the parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed orders. 3. I have since been informed by or on behalf of Julia, Despina and Maria that they have no objection to the proposed orders being made. Adriana and Billy did not respond, although Billy has sent a number of emails to my Associate about his former solicitor's claim for orders that will facilitate Billy paying the legal fees that he owes. 4. In the circumstances, I will make the proposed orders to finally bring these proceedings to an end. 5. In proposed order (16) I provided for the Administrator to pay to himself his additional remuneration and costs of completing the administration of the deceased's estate in New South Wales, which he then estimated as being at least $5,500. That proposed order was without prejudice to the Administrator's right to make an application for the allowance of additional remuneration and costs. 6. The Administrator has now established by evidence that his remuneration and costs for completing the administration of the deceased's estate is $19,767, rather than the estimate of $5,500. 7. In the final orders that I will set out below, I have revised proposed order (16) to make an order authorising the Administrator to pay himself $19,767 out of the estate of the deceased in New South Wales to cover his final remuneration and costs. 8. The final matter that must be dealt with is the claim made by Ms Joanne Sharah, Billy's former solicitor, for an order directing the Administrator to pay the amount allowed in the final orders to be paid out of the deceased's estate in respect of Billy's costs to be paid to Ms Sharah. That is the amount of $130,735.60 that is the subject of proposed order (13). 9. It is clearly appropriate that the order sought by Ms Sharah be made. The amount of $130,735.60 is a lump sum determined by the Court to be paid out of the deceased's estate. As has been explained in prior reasons for judgment, the Court has already determined the amounts that should be paid to each party for their costs out of the deceased's estate. That exercise was carried out when Billy was represented. The amounts to be paid for costs out of the deceased's estate have now finally been determined. 10. However, the total amount claimed by Ms Sharah is $176,419.50, which is $45,683.90 more than the gross sum that will be ordered to be paid to Billy out of the deceased's estate. In calculating her total claim, Ms Sharah did not claim all the interest to which she was technically entitled. 11. I heard Ms Sharah's claim on 3 February 2022 by a telephone hearing in which Billy did not participate. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I held that Ms Sharah was entitled to be paid the full amount of the fees and disbursements that she claimed. That was in part because the time for Billy to require that Ms Sharah's claim be assessed had expired. 12. However, I did not make final orders on Ms Sharah's claim given that Billy had not appeared and there was some doubt about his having been given notice of the application as a result of the fact that Ms Sharah did not know of Billy's whereabouts, and it was not clear whether Billy still had access to the only email account known to Ms Sharah. 13. I decided that in principle, Ms Sharah was entitled to the orders that she sought, but required Ms Sharah to attempt once more to give Billy notice of the application. 14. Ms Sharah has delivered to my Associate an affidavit sworn by her on 4 February 2022 to the effect that on 3 February 2022 she sent Billy an email in accordance with the order for service that I made on 3 February 2022. That email advised Billy that I had ordered Ms Sharah to notify Billy that the Court would make the orders sought in Ms Sharah's notice of motion served on Billy on 20 December 2021 in chambers unless by 4 PM on 11 February 2022 Billy informed the Court by email to my Associate that he wished to appear and be heard on the motion opposing the orders sought. 15. Following the hearing on 3 February 2022, Billy sent emails to my Associate dated 7 February 2022, 14 February 2022, 21 February 2022, 23 February 2022 and 2 March 2022. The receipt of those emails shows that Billy received Ms Sharah's 3 February 2022 email. 16. It is, unfortunately, not easy to understand the submissions that Billy has made to the Court. He is unrepresented and he advised that he is suffering from an incurable medical condition. On 14 February 2022, Billy advised my Associate that he would have his submissions ready by the end of that week. The substance of Billy's submissions appears to be contained in his emails to my Associate dated 23 February 2022 and 2 March 2022. 17. Billy indicated that he did not complain about the costs claimed by senior counsel but asked to be provided with all the agreements and estimates of fees involving Ms Sharah and his junior counsel. Billy said that he disputed the amount of the fees that he had been charged. He said: "Itemised accounts. To date, and in particular, $191,000 less $60,000 $130,000". It is not clear what this reference was intended to mean. As I understand it, Billy also sought the mercy of the Court because of his parlous health condition. 18. As I have explained above, the issue of Billy's entitlement to be paid the amount of $130,735.60 out of the deceased's estate has now been determined on a lump sum basis, and it is clear that that amount should be paid to Ms Sharah. 19. For completeness, I should note that the effect of proposed orders (18) and (19) is that the Administrator will be authorised to deduct $47,587.96 from the share of the deceased's estate that would otherwise have been paid to Billy. Those orders have resulted from Billy's failed attempt to prevent the Administrator from selling the Dulwich Hill property. 20. The only issue remaining for consideration is therefore whether the Administrator should be ordered to pay to Ms Sharah the balance of her claim, being $45,683.90 out of Billy's remaining share of the deceased's estate. 21. While I have great sympathy for Billy's situation, he has not provided to the Court any proper basis for changing the view expressed in my ex tempore judgment delivered on 3 February 2022. As I have said, I was advised that the time for Billy to challenge Ms Sharah's claim by requiring that her claim for fees and disbursements be assessed had expired. Whether or not that information is true is not a matter now to be determined by this Court. I consider that the appropriate course is to make the order sought by Ms Sharah, but without prejudice to any right that Billy may still have to challenge Ms Sharah's claim by taking steps outside these proceedings. 22. It should be noted that by order 7 made on 3 February 2022, I ordered that Billy pay to Ms Sharah the filing costs in respect of the notice of motion, such costs to be payable by the Administrator out of Billy's share in the estate at the same time as the other costs are paid to Ms Sharah. 23. Subject to par 24, the orders that the Court will make to bring these proceedings to an end therefore are: 1. Order that in lieu of the amount payable to the second defendant on an intestacy of Nicholaos (Nicholas) Kalantzis (the deceased) out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales, the second defendant be paid a lump sum of $235,000. 2. Order that in lieu of the amount payable to the fourth defendant on an intestacy of the deceased out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales, the fourth defendant be paid a lump sum of $235,000. 3. Note that the third defendant remains entitled to the amount payable to the third defendant on an intestacy of the deceased out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales, which is declared to be in the amount of $100,000. 4. Note that the plaintiff is entitled to the balance of the deceased's estate in New South Wales after payment of the lump sum amounts referred to in Orders 1 to 3, the legal costs and Administrator's remuneration and costs to be payable out of the deceased's estate in accordance with the following orders. 5. Orders that the amounts referred to in orders 1 to 4 be paid out of the proceeds of sale of the deceased's estate in New South Wales that is in the hands of the Administrator. 6. Order that the plaintiff's reasonable costs of her probate claim be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales on the indemnity basis assessed in the amount of $197,835.95. 7. Order that the plaintiff's reasonable costs of defending the family provision claims made by the second and fourth defendants and in facilitating the sale of the Campsie and Dulwich Hill properties by the Administrator be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales on the ordinary basis assessed in the amount of $60,050.40. 8. Order that the plaintiff be reimbursed out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales for her costs of obtaining expert evidence in Greek law for the purpose of these proceedings, fixed in the amount of $42,820. 9. Order that the first defendant's costs of obtaining probate of the deceased's 2006 will be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales fixed at $15,441.10. 10. Order that the first defendant's costs of investigating and initially defending the claims by the other parties in these proceedings be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales assessed in the amount of $70,832.88. 11. Order that the second defendant's reasonable costs of prosecuting her family provision claim be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales on the ordinary basis assessed at $108,112.98. 12. Order that the third defendant's reasonable costs of defending the family provision claims made by the second and fourth defendants be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales on the ordinary basis assessed at $131,882.88. 13. Order that the fourth defendant's reasonable costs of prosecuting his family provision claim be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales on the ordinary basis assessed at $130,735.60. 14. Order that the Administrator is entitled to be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales his remuneration and costs in respect of obtaining the possession of and selling the Campsie property in the amount of $62,984.95. 15. Order that the Administrator is entitled to be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales his remuneration and costs in respect of obtaining the possession of and selling the Dulwich Hill property in the amount of $84,978.50. 16. Order that the Administrator is entitled to be paid out of the deceased's estate in New South Wales for his remuneration and costs of completing the administration of the deceased's estate $19,767. 17. Order that the second defendant pay to the Administrator $35,271.51 as the costs of resisting the Administrator's actions necessary to obtain possession of and sell the Campsie property. 18. Order that the fourth defendant pay to the Administrator $47,587.96 as the costs of resisting the Administrator's actions necessary to obtain possession of and sell the Dulwich Hill property. 19. Order the Administrator to deduct the amounts of the costs payable by the second defendant and the fourth defendant under orders 17 and 18 from those defendants' lump sum payments the subject of orders 1 and 2 and to apply the amounts deducted in the administration of the deceased's estate in New South Wales. 20. Grants leave to the Administrator and the parties to apply by arrangement with the Associate to Robb J for any further orders necessary to give effect to these orders or as may be necessary to complete the administration of the deceased's estate in New South Wales. 21. Order the Administrator to pay the amount of $130,735.60 the subject of order 13 to Sharah & Associates of 178 Parramatta Road, Stanmore, in part payment of the fees and disbursements owed by the fourth defendant. 22. Order that the Administrator pay to Sharah & Associates $45,683.90 out of the amount the subject of order 2 in further part payment of the fees and disbursements payable by the fourth defendant. 23. Note that order 22 is in addition to the effect of order 7 made by the Court on 3 February 2022. 1. These orders will be the Court's final orders unless the Administrator advises my Associate within 14 days that arithmetical changes need to be made to any of the amounts stated in the orders to ensure that the funds in the estate under the control of the Administrator are sufficient to enable the payments that are contemplated by the orders to be made. ********** Amendments 06 June 2022 - Correction to wording in par 23 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: 06 June 2022