Robinson (Liquidator) v Taylor (Trustee), in the matter of Reed [2017] FCA 27

Robinson (Liquidator) v Taylor (Trustee), in the matter of Reed [2017] FCA 27

Because the applicant largely obtained the substantive relief sought before 21 April 2016 in circumstances where Chubb had opposed that relief, Chubb should pay the applicant's costs up to and including 21 April 2016. Because both parties attempted to settle between 22 April 2016 and 19 May 2016 but neither acted efficiently, each should bear its own costs for that period. Because the only issue after 19 May 2016 was the assignment, which the applicant ultimately accepted was unnecessary, the applicant should pay Chubb's costs from 20 May 2016.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Dispute in Proceedings Concerning a Personal Insolvency Agreement, Insurance Policy Indemnity and Proposed Assignment of Rights / Judgment on the Remaining Issue of Costs After Substantive Issues Were Resolved by Consent
Outcome
Costs ordered in divided periods: Chubb to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 21 April 2016; each party to bear its own costs from 22 April 2016 to 19 May 2016; the applicant to pay Chubb's costs from 20 May 2016.
Legal Topics
['settlement' 'reasonableness of Conduct' 'personal Insolvency Agreement' 'proof of Debt' 'directors and Officers Insurance' 'insolvent Trading' 'assignment of Rights Under Insurance Policy']
['costs' 'bankruptcy' 'insurance' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['settlement' 'reasonableness of Conduct' 'personal Insolvency Agreement' 'proof of Debt' 'directors and Officers Insurance' 'insolvent Trading' 'assignment of Rights Under Insurance Policy']

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 Dispute in Proceedings Concerning a Personal Insolvency Agreement, Insurance Policy Indemnity and Proposed Assignment of Rights / Judgment on the Remaining Issue of Costs After Substantive Issues Were Resolved by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made after the proceedings were largely resolved by consent.' "Whether Chubb should pay the applicant's costs because it opposed primary relief and did not take real steps to resolve the proceedings until 21 April 2016." "Whether the applicant should pay Chubb's costs, particularly after 19 May 2016, because the applicant continued to press for an assignment ultimately accepted to be unnecessary." "How the parties' settlement conduct between 21 April 2016 and 19 May 2016 should affect costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant largely obtained the substantive relief sought before 21 April 2016 in circumstances where Chubb had opposed that relief, Chubb should pay the applicant's costs up to and including 21 April 2016. Because both parties attempted to settle between 22 April 2016 and 19 May 2016 but neither acted efficiently, each should bear its own costs for that period. Because the only issue after 19 May 2016 was the assignment, which the applicant ultimately accepted was unnecessary, the applicant should pay Chubb's costs from 20 May 2016.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in divided periods: Chubb to pay the applicant's costs up to and including 21 April 2016; each party to bear its own costs from 22 April 2016 to 19 May 2016; the applicant to pay Chubb's costs from 20 May 2016.

Orders

  • ["The second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings for the period up to and including 21 April 2016, as agreed or taxed." 'Each party pay their own costs of the proceedings for the period between 22 April 2016 and 19 May 2016.' "The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the proceeding for...