Jackson, in the matter of Conway v Conway [2000] FCA 1604

Jackson, in the matter of Conway v Conway [2000] FCA 1604

Because the respondent creditor served two bankruptcy notices founded on the same judgment debt and later abandoned reliance on the first notice, the applicant's costs thrown away in relation to the first notice, so far as they were not also costs of or in respect of the second notice, should be paid by the respondent creditor.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Notice Application / Costs Determination After Consent Order Setting Aside First Bankruptcy Notice
Outcome
Respondent ordered to pay limited costs of the first bankruptcy notice.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notices' 'costs' 'setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice' 'extension of Time for Compliance']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['bankruptcy Notices' 'costs' 'setting Aside Bankruptcy Notice' 'extension of Time for Compliance']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Notice Application / Costs Determination After Consent Order Setting Aside First Bankruptcy Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent creditor should pay the applicant's costs in respect of the first bankruptcy notice served on 6 September 2000, where that notice was later abandoned and set aside by consent."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent creditor served two bankruptcy notices founded on the same judgment debt and later abandoned reliance on the first notice, the applicant's costs thrown away in relation to the first notice, so far as they were not also costs of or in respect of the second notice, should be paid by the respondent creditor.

Court Disposition

Respondent ordered to pay limited costs of the first bankruptcy notice.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the applicant his costs of the bankruptcy notice of 6 September 2000 to the extent that such costs were not also costs of or in respect of the bankruptcy notice of 12 September 2000.']