Re Washington, H.J. v. Ex parte Washington, H.J. & Ors [1988] FCA 242

Re Washington, H.J. v. Ex parte Washington, H.J. & Ors [1988] FCA 242

The summons under s.81 was set aside in respect of the four applicants, and the applicants were awarded the costs of and incidental to the application to set the summons aside. No further costs for preparatory work for the expected examinations were allowed because the ordinary practice is not to reimburse lawyers' fees of witnesses summoned under s.81, s.81(14) did not apply, and that practice should be applied by analogy even though the examinations would not proceed because of an error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application to Set Aside Summons Under S.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
Outcome
Application allowed in part; summons set aside and costs of the application awarded, but further preparatory costs refused.
Legal Topics
['summons Under S.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966' 'bankruptcy Examination' 'costs']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['summons Under S.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966' 'bankruptcy 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

Bankruptcy / Application to Set Aside Summons Under S.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application made on behalf of Frances Jaye Washington should be treated as also an application by Howard John Washington, Thomas John O'Toole and Ian Robert Skinner." 'Whether the summons under s.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 issued at the request of C.S.R. Limited should be set aside in respect of the four applicants.' 'Whether costs incurred by the proposed examinees in preparatory work for the expected examinations should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons under s.81 was set aside in respect of the four applicants, and the applicants were awarded the costs of and incidental to the application to set the summons aside. No further costs for preparatory work for the expected examinations were allowed because the ordinary practice is not to reimburse lawyers' fees of witnesses summoned under s.81, s.81(14) did not apply, and that practice should be applied by analogy even though the examinations would not proceed because of an error.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; summons set aside and costs of the application awarded, but further preparatory costs refused.

Orders

  • ["The application made on behalf of Frances Jaye Washington, which has been filed in Court by leave, be treated as if it were also an application by Howard John Washington, Thomas John O'Toole and Ian Robert Skinner." 'The summons under s.81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 issued at the request of C.S.R. Limited, dated...