Re Dacey, Les Ex parte Chick & Kev Distributors Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 46

Re Dacey, Les Ex parte Chick & Kev Distributors Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 46

It was not established that the taxing officer committed any error of principle in disallowing the solicitor's claims either for acting as counsel or for travelling time, as there was no evidence of additional work or that rules 170(4), 171(4), or 171(5) applied in the particular circumstances. The taxing officer acted within his discretion, and there is no ground for the Court to interfere.

Parties
Bankrupt: Les Dacey; Petitioning Creditor: Chick & Kev Distributors Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 1981
Procedural Posture
Application to Review Taxation of Costs / Review of Decision of Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Solicitor Acting as Counsel, Travelling Time Allowance
Bankruptcy Costs Taxation of Costs Solicitor Acting as Counsel Travelling Time Allowance

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Dacey

Bankrupt

Chick & Kev Distributors Pty. Limited

Petitioning Creditor

Procedural Posture

Application to Review Taxation of Costs / Review of Decision of Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in disallowing an allowance for a solicitor acting as counsel.
  2. 2 Whether the taxing officer erred in principle in disallowing claims for travelling time to and from court.

Ratio Decidendi

It was not established that the taxing officer committed any error of principle in disallowing the solicitor's claims either for acting as counsel or for travelling time, as there was no evidence of additional work or that rules 170(4), 171(4), or 171(5) applied in the particular circumstances. The taxing officer acted within his discretion, and there is no ground for the Court to interfere.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.