KHERA v JONES [1997] NSWCA 177

KHERA v JONES [1997] NSWCA 177

There was no manifest error of fact or law; costs order was appropriate as the opponent succeeded on the motion and orders were made by consent even though the claimant later claimed lack of authority due to bankruptcy.

Parties
Claimant: Jaswant Khera; Opponent/receiver and Manager of the Partnership: Ian Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From a Judgment on a Partnership Dispute
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Sequestration, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Partnership Law Costs Sequestration Leave to Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaswant Khera

Claimant

Ian Jones

Opponent/receiver and Manager of the Partnership

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From a Judgment on a Partnership Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a manifest error of fact in ordering the claimant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion to date
  2. 2 Whether there was a manifest error of law in making the costs order post-sequestration under the Bankruptcy Act

Ratio Decidendi

There was no manifest error of fact or law; costs order was appropriate as the opponent succeeded on the motion and orders were made by consent even though the claimant later claimed lack of authority due to bankruptcy.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs.
  • No order made regarding expedited costs assessment.