Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel (No 2) [2020] FCA 50

The case was appropriate for a lump-sum costs order because the cross-claimant served supporting affidavit material, the second cross-respondent filed no response, and the affidavit satisfied the Court that the amount sought was appropriate.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 February 2020
Procedural Posture: Application by Cross Claimant for Lump Sum Costs Order / Costs Determined on the Papers After Default Judgment Against the Second Cross Respondent
Outcome: Application granted; the second cross-respondent was ordered to pay the cross-claimant's costs.
Legal Topics: ['lump Sum Costs Order' 'default Judgment' 'pre Judgment Interest']

['costs' 'bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'commercial and Corporations'] ['lump Sum Costs Order' 'default Judgment' 'pre Judgment Interest']

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

Procedural Posture

Application by Cross Claimant for Lump Sum Costs Order / Costs Determined on the Papers After Default Judgment Against the Second Cross Respondent

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the cross-claimant should receive a lump-sum costs order against the second cross-respondent in the sum of $5,880.50.']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted; the second cross-respondent was ordered to pay the cross-claimant's costs.

Orders

["The second cross-respondent pay the cross-claimant's costs in the sum of $5,880.50."]