Supreme Court settlement in Hoare family dispute, as Anthony Hoare ordered to foot accountant’s legal bill

A Supreme Court judge has ordered a Geelong businessman foot the legal bill of an accountant he accused of fraud and misconduct, following the end of a long-running family dispute.

Anthony Hoare operates the Hoare Bros. earthmoving company in South Geelong.

A Geelong businessman has been ordered to pay the legal costs of an accountant he accused of “serious misconduct and fraud”, after dragging the man into a family dispute

A Supreme Court judgment by Justice Jim Delany, dated July 15, revealed litigation between members of the Hoare family had come to an end after years of legal squabbling.

The dispute largely stemmed from the administration of the 1998 will of businessman Peter Hoare.

At the time of his death in 2011, Mr Hoare controlled a business empire involving “substantial assets”, either in his own name or through trusts and corporate entities.

His sons, Anthony and Matthew, were named executers of his estate, along with his long-time solicitor, Kevin Roache, and accountant John Nagle.

Three proceedings launched by Anthony Hoare were slated to go to trial this month, before the Hoares, including sister Kim McDonald, agreed to a settlement.

It was previously reported the proceedings involved an informal agreement between Geelong Quarries in Stonehaven, run by Matthew and Ms McDonald, and South Geelong earthmoving company Hoare Bros, operated by Anthony.

On July 1, the latter applied, with his siblings’ consent, to vacate the trial date following a settlement being reached, Justice Delany said.

Mr Hoare also asked the court to discontinue proceedings against Mr Roache and Mr Nagle – Justice Delany’s July 15 judgment regarded this particular matter.

Both Mr Roache and Mr Nagle agreed to have the case against them brought to a close, however Mr Nagle wanted conditions – Mr Hoare to pay his legal costs on an indemnity basis, and be barred from bringing certain claims against him in the future.

Justice Delany ruled in Mr Nagle’s favour, finding Anthony Hoare’s conduct was “not consistent with the overarching obligations owed by him”.

“His dilatory conduct … and the various changes he has made to his case have caused and exacerbated the cost of the proceeding to all parties,” Justice Delany wrote.

Justice Delany said Mr Hoare pursued claims against Mr Nagle even after a settlement offer – known as a Calderbank offer – was made in November 2020.

Mr Hoare also continued litigation following an unsuccessful application to consolidate proceedings and after an invitation by Justice Delany himself to end the suit on January 29, 2025.

“Despite all of these things Anthony continued and made further revised and expanded claims against Mr Nagle … only to discontinue those claims on the eve of trial,” Judge Delany said.

“This type of conduct is exactly the type of conduct that warrants the making of an indemnity costs order in favour of Mr Nagle.”

Judge Delany said it was “accurate” to state Mr Nagle should never have been dragged into the litigation between Hoare family members, and said the rejection of Mr Nagle’s walkaway offer was unreasonable.

“At the time the Calderbank offer was made, Mr Nagle’s costs were approximately $22,000,” Judge Delany said.
“At the time the offer expired on 17 November 2020, his costs were approximately $24,500. “Those costs are now a little shy of $600,000. If the Calderbank offer had been accepted, Mr Nagle would not have been required to incur those further costs.”

While there has not been a determination on the merits of the claims made against Mr Nagle, Judge Delany said “for five years he has been exposed to various claims by the plaintiff” – claims which involve allegations of fraud and “serious misconduct”, and have since been abandoned.

Mr Hoare was ordered to pay Mr Nagle’s costs on an indemnity basis and is barred from bringing future claims against him.

Originally published as Supreme Court settlement in Hoare family dispute, as Anthony Hoare ordered to foot accountant’s legal bill