Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hanna v Hanna (No 4) [2024] FCA 1347

Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hanna v Hanna (No 4) [2024] FCA 1347

The non-acceptance by Mr Abdalla of the offers made by Ms Shonoda was not unreasonable because the offers required mutual releases covering indeterminate claims and liabilities, and there was no evidence as to their value or extent. Therefore, indemnity costs were not warranted.

Parties
Cross Claimant: Hedra Fayez Nashed Abdalla; First Cross Respondent: Andrew Joseph Hanna; Second Cross Respondent: Eman Kamel Shonoda
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim / Post Judgment (costs Determination After Primary Judgment and Orders)
Outcome
Orders for costs made in favour of the cross-claimant against the first cross-respondent and for the second cross-respondent against the cross-claimant on a party/party basis. Application for indemnity costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Offers of Compromise, Calderbank Offers, Indemnity Costs, Interest on Judgment
Commercial Law Corporations Law Insolvency Costs Offers of Compromise Calderbank Offers Indemnity Costs Interest on Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hedra Fayez Nashed Abdalla

Cross Claimant

Andrew Joseph Hanna

First Cross Respondent

Eman Kamel Shonoda

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim / Post Judgment (costs Determination After Primary Judgment and Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-respondent should receive an order for indemnity costs based on rejected offers of compromise and Calderbank offers
  2. 2 Whether non-acceptance of the offers was unreasonable given the breadth of mutual release sought

Ratio Decidendi

The non-acceptance by Mr Abdalla of the offers made by Ms Shonoda was not unreasonable because the offers required mutual releases covering indeterminate claims and liabilities, and there was no evidence as to their value or extent. Therefore, indemnity costs were not warranted.

Court Disposition

Orders for costs made in favour of the cross-claimant against the first cross-respondent and for the second cross-respondent against the cross-claimant on a party/party basis. Application for indemnity costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the cross-claimant (Mr Abdalla) against the first cross-respondent (Andrew Hanna) in the sum of $149,500 plus interest calculated from 6 June 2017 in the sum of $63,138.04, totaling $212,638.04.
  • First cross-respondent to pay cross-claimant's costs of the second further amended notice of cross-claim as agreed or taxed.