Young v Thomson (Trustee), in the matter of Young (Bankrupt) (No 4) [2017] FCA 175

Young v Thomson (Trustee), in the matter of Young (Bankrupt) (No 4) [2017] FCA 175

Given Ms Thomson's inadequate and delayed communication with Ms Young regarding the litigation funding agreement and the poor system for responding to creditor queries—significant factors prompting Ms Young's urgent application—Ms Thomson must pay Ms Young's costs of the urgent application. For the judicial advice application, both Ms Young's and Ms Thomson's costs are payable from the bankrupt estate. The unsuccessful substantive application means Ms Young must pay Ms Thomson's and Ironbark's costs, except for duplicated submission costs. All costs orders are stayed pending determination of Ms Young's appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Joanne Young; First Respondent: Louise Thomson as the Former Trustee of the Property of Leslie James Young, a Bankrupt; Second Respondent: Ironbark Funding Red Pty Ltd ACN 606 518 656
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) Ss 178 and 179 / Costs Determination After Substantive Application and Interlocutory Steps
Outcome
Costs orders made apportioning the costs of the urgent application, interlocutory application, and substantive proceedings. All costs orders stayed pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs, Litigation Funding, Trustee's Duties, Judicial Advice, Creditors' Rights
Insolvency Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Costs Litigation Funding Trustee's Duties Judicial Advice Creditors' Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joanne Young

Applicant

Louise Thomson as the Former Trustee of the Property of Leslie James Young, a Bankrupt

First Respondent

Ironbark Funding Red Pty Ltd ACN 606 518 656

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) Ss 178 and 179 / Costs Determination After Substantive Application and Interlocutory Steps

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the urgent application before the start of the proceeding
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the interlocutory application for judicial advice
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the substantive application under ss 178 and 179 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Given Ms Thomson's inadequate and delayed communication with Ms Young regarding the litigation funding agreement and the poor system for responding to creditor queries—significant factors prompting Ms Young's urgent application—Ms Thomson must pay Ms Young's costs of the urgent application. For the judicial advice application, both Ms Young's and Ms Thomson's costs are payable from the bankrupt estate. The unsuccessful substantive application means Ms Young must pay Ms Thomson's and Ironbark's costs, except for duplicated submission costs. All costs orders are stayed pending determination of Ms Young's appeal.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made apportioning the costs of the urgent application, interlocutory application, and substantive proceedings. All costs orders stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • Ms Thomson must pay Ms Young's costs of the urgent application before the start of the proceeding.
  • The costs of each of Ms Young and Ms Thomson in the interlocutory judicial advice application are to be paid from the bankrupt estate.