Background
In the underlying proceeding, the Supreme Court appointed trustees to sell property co-owned by Jane Hart and her daughter, Tineke Ikpoza. Ms Hart held a 75% interest and Ms Ikpoza held 25%. Ms Hart succeeded in obtaining the sale order, with reasons published in Hart v Ng [2026] QSC 209.
The parties then made submissions on costs. Ms Hart, who had solicitors and counsel, sought her standard costs from Ms Ikpoza’s share of the sale proceeds. Ms Ikpoza was self-represented and had not incurred legal costs. She proposed, principally, that both parties’ costs be paid from the proceeds before the balance was distributed.
The Court’s Holding
Freeburn J held that the ordinary position in a co-owner sale application is that parties’ costs are paid from the sale proceeds, because those costs are incidental to co-ownership. But that rule is discretionary and may be displaced where conduct has unnecessarily caused costs or an application has been opposed without cogent grounds.
Although every ground on which Ms Ikpoza resisted the sale had failed, the Court did not characterise her opposition as unreasonable. She had relied on agreements voluntarily made by both parties that appeared intended to give her an indefinite right to occupy one house. However, Ms Hart’s March 2025 private-sale offer, which would have given Ms Ikpoza $100,000 more than her 25% legal entitlement, should have been accepted and would have avoided the proceeding. The Court ordered that half of Ms Hart’s costs be paid from the sale proceeds before apportionment and the other half from Ms Ikpoza’s share before distribution.
Key Takeaways
- Costs in co-owner sale proceedings will ordinarily come from the sale proceeds, but the Court retains a broad discretion.
- An unsuccessful opposition is not necessarily unreasonable merely because it fails.
- A party who rejects a materially more favourable pre-litigation resolution proposal may face a costs adjustment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how costs discretion can prevent a successful majority co-owner from bearing most of their own legal costs simply because costs are paid from a jointly owned asset. It also underscores the importance of practical settlement proposals in property disputes between co-owners.