Singh v Khan (No 2) [2023] FCA 239

Singh v Khan (No 2) [2023] FCA 239

As the appellant was unsuccessful in the appeal and there were no submissions or circumstances justifying a contrary order, the respondents are awarded costs assessed on a lump sum basis if not agreed.

Parties
Appellant: Gurjit Singh; First Respondent: Ghulam Khan; Second Respondent: Samina Khan; Third Respondent: Fobupu Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Post Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to the respondents, assessed on a lump sum basis if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Bankruptcy, Appeal Procedure
Commercial Law Corporations Law Insolvency Law Costs Orders Bankruptcy Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjit Singh

Appellant

Ghulam Khan

First Respondent

Samina Khan

Second Respondent

Fobupu Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Post Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs of the appeal against a sequestration order.

Ratio Decidendi

As the appellant was unsuccessful in the appeal and there were no submissions or circumstances justifying a contrary order, the respondents are awarded costs assessed on a lump sum basis if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the respondents, assessed on a lump sum basis if not agreed.

Orders

  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the appeal, such costs to be assessed on a lump sum basis by a registrar if not agreed.