Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith [2010] FCAFC 154

Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith [2010] FCAFC 154

The primary judge's order was interlocutory because it merely remitted to the Registrar the question of what amounts should be allowed on taxation, so leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects of success: the 2006 Full Court order setting aside Wilcox J's order that Mr Donnelly's costs be costs in the administration and substituting no order as to costs was intended to deny Mr Donnelly indemnity from the former bankrupt estates for those proceedings, and the primary judge did not err in disallowing public examination costs incurred after 1 March 2004.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision Remitting Taxation Issues to a Registrar / Full Court of the Federal Court; Appeal Dismissed as Incompetent and Leave to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as incompetent; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['trustee in Bankruptcy Indemnity for Costs, Charges and Expenses' 'costs of Administration' 'effect of No Order as to Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'public Examination Costs']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'practice and Procedure'] ['trustee in Bankruptcy Indemnity for Costs, Charges and Expenses' 'costs of Administration' 'effect of No Order as to Costs' 'taxation of Costs' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'public Examination Costs']

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

Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision Remitting Taxation Issues to a Registrar / Full Court of the Federal Court; Appeal Dismissed as Incompetent and Leave to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge's order remitting the proceeding to the Registrar was interlocutory so that leave to appeal was required." "Whether the Full Court's 2006 order that there be no order as to costs deprived the former trustee in bankruptcy of an indemnity from the respondents' former bankrupt estates for legal costs and disbursements in those proceedings." 'Whether the trustee was entitled to remuneration, costs, charges and expenses associated with public examinations of the respondents after 1 March 2004.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge's order was interlocutory because it merely remitted to the Registrar the question of what amounts should be allowed on taxation, so leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the proposed appeal had no prospects of success: the 2006 Full Court order setting aside Wilcox J's order that Mr Donnelly's costs be costs in the administration and substituting no order as to costs was intended to deny Mr Donnelly indemnity from the former bankrupt estates for those proceedings, and the primary judge did not err in disallowing public examination costs incurred after 1 March 2004.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as incompetent; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.' 'Leave to appeal be refused.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal including, by consent, their costs of travelling to and attending at the hearing in Sydney." 'It be declared that the applicant is not entitled to any...