Coci, Joseph & Ors v Nilant, Charles Philippe Louis & Ors [1998] FCA 105

Coci, Joseph & Ors v Nilant, Charles Philippe Louis & Ors [1998] FCA 105

The summary judgment application was brought on a factual condition that was not open to argument and without a reasonable chance of success; accordingly, this is an exceptional case in which the creditors should pay the applicants' costs.

Parties
Applicant: Joseph Coci; Applicant: Helen Joy Coci; Applicant: Ernest Rampellini; Applicant: Jennifer Anne Rampellini; First Respondent: Charles Philippe Louis Nilant; Second Respondent: Terence Cornelius McManus; Second Respondent: Robert Henri DeBuf; Second Respondent: Patricia Anne DeBuf; Second Respondent: Reginald Sarsfield Finn; Second Respondent: Elizabeth Rose Finn; Second Respondent: Donald George Lyster; Second Respondent: Leonie Lyster; Second Respondent: John Selsmark; Second Respondent: Robert Lloyd Richard-Coombes; Second Respondent: Ida Eleanor Richard-Coombes; Second Respondent: Michael Cyril Halpin; Second Respondent: George Hugh Margetts; Second Respondent: Gwendoline Mary Margetts; Second Respondent: Toleen Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 008 923 911; Second Respondent: Lavin Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 008 923 920; Second Respondent: Tudorcourt Investments Pty Ltd ACN 051 683 919; Second Respondent: MacDougall Pty Ltd ACN 008 674 575
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment / Costs Determination After Summary Judgment Motion Dismissed
Outcome
Second respondents to pay the applicants' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Court's Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Court's Discretion in Costs Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Coci

Applicant

Helen Joy Coci

Applicant

Ernest Rampellini

Applicant

Jennifer Anne Rampellini

Applicant

Charles Philippe Louis Nilant

First Respondent

Terence Cornelius McManus

Second Respondent

Robert Henri DeBuf

Second Respondent

Patricia Anne DeBuf

Second Respondent

Reginald Sarsfield Finn

Second Respondent

Elizabeth Rose Finn

Second Respondent

Donald George Lyster

Second Respondent

Leonie Lyster

Second Respondent

John Selsmark

Second Respondent

Robert Lloyd Richard-Coombes

Second Respondent

Ida Eleanor Richard-Coombes

Second Respondent

Michael Cyril Halpin

Second Respondent

George Hugh Margetts

Second Respondent

Gwendoline Mary Margetts

Second Respondent

Toleen Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 008 923 911

Second Respondent

Lavin Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 008 923 920

Second Respondent

Tudorcourt Investments Pty Ltd ACN 051 683 919

Second Respondent

MacDougall Pty Ltd ACN 008 674 575

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment / Costs Determination After Summary Judgment Motion Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered in the cause or paid by the second respondents after a failed application to dismiss under O 20 r 2 FCR

Ratio Decidendi

The summary judgment application was brought on a factual condition that was not open to argument and without a reasonable chance of success; accordingly, this is an exceptional case in which the creditors should pay the applicants' costs.

Court Disposition

Second respondents to pay the applicants' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • The second respondents pay the applicants' costs of the motion.