Inspector General in Bankruptcy v Bradshaw (No 2) [2006] FCA 383

Inspector General in Bankruptcy v Bradshaw (No 2) [2006] FCA 383

The respondents were the successful parties because the declarations were not seriously contested, the applicants were unsuccessful on the major issues, and the application was otherwise dismissed. The applicants had deliberately chosen not to quantify the Commonwealth's loss at the first hearing despite knowing quantum was in issue and later acted unreasonably in seeking to resile from that position. Justice therefore required the applicants to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party basis up to 15 April 2005 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Proceeding Concerning Declarations and Recovery Under Bankruptcy Trustee Bonds / After Substantive Judgment Dismissing the Application Except for Declarations
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party basis up to 15 April 2005 and on an indemnity basis after 15 April 2005.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'bankruptcy Trustee Bond' 'application to Reopen Case to Quantify Loss']
['costs' 'bankruptcy'] ['indemnity Costs' 'party and Party Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'bankruptcy Trustee Bond' 'application to Reopen Case to Quantify Loss']

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 in Proceeding Concerning Declarations and Recovery Under Bankruptcy Trustee Bonds / After Substantive Judgment Dismissing the Application Except for Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful respondents were entitled to costs for the whole proceeding despite failing on some issues.' "Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis after 15 April 2005." 'Whether rejection of the 21 June 2005 Calderbank offer supported indemnity costs after 28 June 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were the successful parties because the declarations were not seriously contested, the applicants were unsuccessful on the major issues, and the application was otherwise dismissed. The applicants had deliberately chosen not to quantify the Commonwealth's loss at the first hearing despite knowing quantum was in issue and later acted unreasonably in seeking to resile from that position. Justice therefore required the applicants to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party basis up to 15 April 2005 and on an indemnity basis thereafter.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party basis up to 15 April 2005 and on an indemnity basis after 15 April 2005.

Orders

  • ["Up to 15 April 2005, the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on a party and party basis." "After 15 April 2005, the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis, the indemnity costs to include all costs, including reserved costs, incurred by the respondents except...