McVeigh(Trustee), in the matter of Piccolo v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 558

McVeigh(Trustee), in the matter of Piccolo v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] FCA 558

Indemnity costs were refused because the appeal was genuinely arguable, the alleged conduct did not amount to intimidation or an ulterior motive warranting indemnity costs, and the second respondent's exposure to the first respondent's total costs arose from its own freely assumed contractual obligation. The second respondent's motion was unnecessary and it was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Bankruptcy Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 4 June 1999 After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Notice of Motion dated 4 June 1999 dismissed; second respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'ulterior Motive' 'arguable Appeal' 'contractual Costs Indemnity' 'composition Under Bankruptcy Act']
['costs' 'bankruptcy'] ['indemnity Costs' 'ulterior Motive' 'arguable Appeal' 'contractual Costs Indemnity' 'composition Under Bankruptcy Act']

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 in Bankruptcy Appeal / Notice of Motion Dated 4 June 1999 After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the appeal had little prospect of success or was continued for an ulterior motive amounting to intimidation.' "Whether the second respondent's contractual obligation to reimburse the first respondent's total costs was an unusual circumstance justifying indemnity costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were refused because the appeal was genuinely arguable, the alleged conduct did not amount to intimidation or an ulterior motive warranting indemnity costs, and the second respondent's exposure to the first respondent's total costs arose from its own freely assumed contractual obligation. The second respondent's motion was unnecessary and it was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dated 4 June 1999 dismissed; second respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion dated 4 June 1999 is dismissed.' "The second respondent pay the appellant's costs of the motion."]