Wilson, in the matter of Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No 1) [2000] FCA 1039

Wilson, in the matter of Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No 1) [2000] FCA 1039

The Court refused to vary the costs order because the motion filed on 23 February 2000 could not succeed: no motion had been filed on 18 February 2000, and even if the applicants' motion had been amended to refer to the motion filed on 14 March 2000, it would have failed and been dismissed with costs. The result would therefore have been the same whether the motion was dealt with for irregularity in form or on its substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Matter / Notice of Motion Seeking Revocation of a Costs Order
Outcome
The applicants' notice of motion filed 16 June 2000 was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['notice of Motion' 'strike Out Application' 'revocation or Variation of Costs Order']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['notice of Motion' 'strike Out Application' 'revocation or Variation of Costs Order']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Matter / Notice of Motion Seeking Revocation of a Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the order for costs made in relation to the applicants' notice of motion filed on 23 February 2000 should be revoked or varied." "Whether the applicants' filing of the 23 February 2000 motion, based on a threatened motion that had not been filed on 18 February 2000, justified changing the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to vary the costs order because the motion filed on 23 February 2000 could not succeed: no motion had been filed on 18 February 2000, and even if the applicants' motion had been amended to refer to the motion filed on 14 March 2000, it would have failed and been dismissed with costs. The result would therefore have been the same whether the motion was dealt with for irregularity in form or on its substance.

Court Disposition

The applicants' notice of motion filed 16 June 2000 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' notice of motion filed 16 June 2000 be dismissed." "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion."]