Frigger v Banning (No 14) [2024] FCA 66

Frigger v Banning (No 14) [2024] FCA 66

The applicants' interlocutory application was misconceived because Registrar's orders were administrative, not judicial, and had no substantive consequence. Registrar had authority to supervise taxation, including allowing amendment of bill of costs. Allegations of fraud were not substantiated and did not affect Registrar's decision. Application to permanently stay taxation was also without merit; allegations regarding indemnity principle and non-liability for costs were unproven.

Parties
First Applicant: Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger; Second Applicant: Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger; First Respondent: Sandra May Banning; Second Respondent: Ann Marion Campbell-Smith in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Donald Campbell‑Smith; Third Respondent: Professional Services of Australia Ltd (ACN 082 879 641); Fourth Respondent: Banning Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 009 006 437)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Application refused; costs ordered against applicants
Legal Topics
Taxation of Costs, Registrar's Powers, Amendment of Bill of Costs, Fraud Allegations, Stay of Proceedings
Practice and Procedure Costs Taxation of Costs Registrar's Powers Amendment of Bill of Costs Fraud Allegations Stay of Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger

First Applicant

Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger

Second Applicant

Sandra May Banning

First Respondent

Ann Marion Campbell-Smith in her capacity as Executor of the Estate of Donald Campbell‑Smith

Second Respondent

Professional Services of Australia Ltd (ACN 082 879 641)

Third Respondent

Banning Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 009 006 437)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar had authority to allow amendment of the bill of costs and reset taxation process
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory 'orders' by the Registrar were administrative or judicial
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud warranted setting aside Registrar's orders

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' interlocutory application was misconceived because Registrar's orders were administrative, not judicial, and had no substantive consequence. Registrar had authority to supervise taxation, including allowing amendment of bill of costs. Allegations of fraud were not substantiated and did not affect Registrar's decision. Application to permanently stay taxation was also without merit; allegations regarding indemnity principle and non-liability for costs were unproven.

Court Disposition

Application refused; costs ordered against applicants

Orders

  • The applicants' application for interlocutory orders dated 3 November 2023 is refused.
  • The applicants do pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application for interlocutory orders dated 3 November 2023, such costs to be assessed on a lump sum basis by a Registrar and to be paid forthwith in accordance with these orders.