Bovaird v Frost (No 2) [2013] FCA 1166

Bovaird v Frost (No 2) [2013] FCA 1166

The costs applications turned on the necessity for the applicants to incur costs due to the respondents' insistence on an incorrect procedural requirement; as a result, the respondents were liable for those costs. Conversely, unreasonable or clearly unsuccessful applications (such as cross-vesting in the circumstances) justified costs against the applicants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment
Outcome
Orders as to costs granted for and against parties as specified.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'cross Vesting' 'bankrupt Estates' 'leave to Proceed' 'indemnity for Costs']
['bankruptcy Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Orders' 'cross Vesting' 'bankrupt Estates' 'leave to Proceed' 'indemnity for Costs']

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 Application / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants or respondents should bear the costs of applications regarding leave and cross-vesting' 'Whether the third respondent (trustee) is justified in indemnifying respondents for costs in the current applications' 'Appropriateness of indemnity costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs applications turned on the necessity for the applicants to incur costs due to the respondents' insistence on an incorrect procedural requirement; as a result, the respondents were liable for those costs. Conversely, unreasonable or clearly unsuccessful applications (such as cross-vesting in the circumstances) justified costs against the applicants.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs granted for and against parties as specified.

Orders

  • ["The first and second respondents pay the applicants' costs of seeking leave to proceed in the Supreme Court and resisting the oral application to vary the grant of leave." "The applicants pay the first and second respondents' costs of the cross-vesting application." 'The third respondent would not be justified at...