1In family provision proceedings under Part 4 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), it is not necessary to identify a special or unusual feature to justify indemnity costs; the UCPR contemplates the availability of indemnity costs in such applications, and the factors identified in Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd are not generally relevant in that context.
2Where executors are indemnified from the estate for their costs of defending family provision proceedings but no such indemnity extends as of right to applicants, fairness and justice support an indemnity costs order in favour of substantially successful applicants to address the inherent disadvantage against a well-funded respondent.
3Repeated failure by executors to address deficiencies in estate valuations — including obtaining only desktop land valuations and a limited-scope share valuation not compliant with court orders — despite multiple requests, is a relevant factor supporting indemnity costs under UCPR rr 700A and 703.
