Dunstan v Seymour [2002] FCA 1195

There was no evidence that the costs orders made by Finn J on 14 September 1998 were obtained by fraud or through collusion. Any misrepresentation alleged by Mr Dunstan was unfounded, and his submissions did not establish a basis for setting aside the orders.

Parties: Applicant on the Motion: Colin George Dunstan; First Respondent to the Motion: Geoffrey Seymour; First Respondent to the Motion: John Growder; Second Respondent to the Motion: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 September 2002
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Previous Costs Orders
Outcome: The notices of motion to set aside the costs orders were dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: Setting Aside Court Orders, Fraud on the Court, Costs Orders

Procedure Costs Setting Aside Court Orders Fraud on the Court Costs Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Colin George Dunstan

Applicant on the Motion

Geoffrey Seymour

First Respondent to the Motion

John Growder

First Respondent to the Motion

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent to the Motion

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Previous Costs Orders

Legal Issues

1 Whether the costs orders made against Mr Dunstan on 14 September 1998 were procured by fraud and should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

The notices of motion to set aside the costs orders were dismissed with costs.

Orders

The notice of motions in matters AG31 of 1997 and AG32 of 1997 are dismissed.
Mr Dunstan to pay the costs to the first respondent on the motion, Mr Seymour, in matter No. AG31 of 1997 and the costs to the first respondent on the motion, Mr Growder, in matter No. AG32 of 1997.