Marshall v Sheahan [1999] FCA 982

Marshall v Sheahan [1999] FCA 982

Because the applicants were bankrupts and insolvent, and Andrew Cooper played an active part in the litigation and had an interest in its subject matter, it was appropriate to make an order for costs against him. The solicitors failed to properly instruct counsel, comply with directions, and ensure timely evidence, amounting to sufficient grounds for costs to be ordered against them. Costs should be paid by the applicants, Andrew Cooper, and the solicitors.

Parties
Applicant: Jillian Helen Marshall; Applicant: Richard John Cooper; Applicant: Simon Vincent Cooper; First Respondent: John Sheahan as Trustee of the bankrupt estates of Jillian Helen Marshall, Richard Cooper & Simon Vincent Cooper; Second Respondent: W J Fountain Pty Ltd (ACN 075 652 318); Third Respondent: William John Fountain; Non Party Subject to Costs Order: Andrew Charles Cooper
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Relief and Costs / Post Interlocutory Decision on Costs
Outcome
Costs orders granted against applicants, Andrew Cooper, and solicitors; application for solicitor-client costs denied.
Legal Topics
Costs, Non Party Costs Orders, Solicitor's Liability for Costs, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Costs Non Party Costs Orders Solicitor's Liability for Costs Interlocutory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jillian Helen Marshall

Applicant

Richard John Cooper

Applicant

Simon Vincent Cooper

Applicant

John Sheahan as Trustee of the bankrupt estates of Jillian Helen Marshall, Richard Cooper & Simon Vincent Cooper

First Respondent

W J Fountain Pty Ltd (ACN 075 652 318)

Second Respondent

William John Fountain

Third Respondent

Andrew Charles Cooper

Non Party Subject to Costs Order

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Relief and Costs / Post Interlocutory Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered against applicants, a non-party Andrew Cooper, and solicitors for the applicants for interlocutory application
  2. 2 Criteria for making costs orders against non-parties
  3. 3 Criteria for making costs orders against solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants were bankrupts and insolvent, and Andrew Cooper played an active part in the litigation and had an interest in its subject matter, it was appropriate to make an order for costs against him. The solicitors failed to properly instruct counsel, comply with directions, and ensure timely evidence, amounting to sufficient grounds for costs to be ordered against them. Costs should be paid by the applicants, Andrew Cooper, and the solicitors.

Court Disposition

Costs orders granted against applicants, Andrew Cooper, and solicitors; application for solicitor-client costs denied.

Orders

  • Costs of respondents to be taxed and paid by applicants, Andrew Cooper, and the solicitors.
  • Application for solicitor-client basis costs denied.