Frigger v Kitay (No 3) [2020] FCA 650

Frigger v Kitay (No 3) [2020] FCA 650

Because the applicants were unsuccessful on their interlocutory applications and in opposing the respondents' applications, and because their reasons for displacing the usual costs rule were substantially rejected, the respondents were entitled to costs following the event except for identified costs connected with preparation and filing of the approval application and the amended notice of address for service. Given the protracted litigation history and the desirability of avoiding further costs disputes, it was appropriate to fix the respondents' costs in a lump sum under r 40.02(b), reduced from the amount claimed to $30,000.00. The Court was not satisfied on the present evidence that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination on Interlocutory Applications in a Commercial and Corporations Proceeding, General and Personal Insolvency Sub Area / Determined on the Papers After Judgment on Four Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the relevant interlocutory applications, fixed at $30,000.00, with specified exclusions; immediate payment within 14 days was not ordered and further consideration of enforceability before judgment was deferred.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Before Final Judgment' 'approval of Costs Agreement' 'security for Costs' 'liquidator Powers']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'corporations' 'insolvency'] ['costs Following the Event' 'lump Sum Costs' 'costs Payable Before Final Judgment' 'approval of Costs Agreement' 'security for Costs' 'liquidator Powers']

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination on Interlocutory Applications in a Commercial and Corporations Proceeding, General and Personal Insolvency Sub Area / Determined on the Papers After Judgment on Four Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event on multiple interlocutory applications' 'Whether costs should be awarded in a lump sum' 'Whether the costs order should be payable within 14 days' 'Whether any costs should be excluded, borne by the respondents, or reserved']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants were unsuccessful on their interlocutory applications and in opposing the respondents' applications, and because their reasons for displacing the usual costs rule were substantially rejected, the respondents were entitled to costs following the event except for identified costs connected with preparation and filing of the approval application and the amended notice of address for service. Given the protracted litigation history and the desirability of avoiding further costs disputes, it was appropriate to fix the respondents' costs in a lump sum under r 40.02(b), reduced from the amount claimed to $30,000.00. The Court was not satisfied on the present evidence that...

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the relevant interlocutory applications, fixed at $30,000.00, with specified exclusions; immediate payment within 14 days was not ordered and further consideration of enforceability before judgment was deferred.

Orders

  • ["The applicants are to pay the respondents' costs of the applications referred to in [1] of the reasons for judgment published today, such costs not to include the respondents' costs of preparing and filing the amended notice of address for service dated 28 August 2019 and the respondents' costs of preparing and...