George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 170

George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 170

The Court refused to vary Order 5 because the only issue on which Ms George succeeded, concerning household chattels and the opportunity to be heard about reg 6.03 of the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth), was a very minor part of the appeal, was not expressly raised in the amended notice of appeal or apparent from written submissions, and took little of the Court's time. The primary focus of the appeal concerned alleged errors about whether property including the Moggill property was held on trust and excluded from the bankrupt estate, on which Ms George was unsuccessful. Those circumstances justified the order that she pay 90% of Mr Fletcher's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation of Costs Order in an Appeal / Determined on the Papers After the Court's Judgment of 25 October 2012
Outcome
The appellant's application to vary Order 5 made on 25 October 2012 was dismissed, with costs payable to the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['variation of Costs Order' 'percentage Costs Order' 'bankrupt Estate' 'household Property and Chattels' 'opportunity to Be Heard']
['costs' 'bankruptcy' 'appellate Procedure'] ['variation of Costs Order' 'percentage Costs Order' 'bankrupt Estate' 'household Property and Chattels' 'opportunity to Be Heard']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation of Costs Order in an Appeal / Determined on the Papers After the Court's Judgment of 25 October 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's obligation under Order 5 to pay 90% of the first respondent's costs should be varied." "Whether the issue on which the appellant succeeded occupied sufficient time or significance to justify reducing the percentage of the first respondent's costs payable by the appellant." 'Whether costs in favour of the second, third and fourth respondents should follow the event.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to vary Order 5 because the only issue on which Ms George succeeded, concerning household chattels and the opportunity to be heard about reg 6.03 of the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth), was a very minor part of the appeal, was not expressly raised in the amended notice of appeal or apparent from written submissions, and took little of the Court's time. The primary focus of the appeal concerned alleged errors about whether property including the Moggill property was held on trust and excluded from the bankrupt estate, on which Ms George was unsuccessful. Those circumstances justified the order that she pay 90% of Mr Fletcher's costs.

Court Disposition

The appellant's application to vary Order 5 made on 25 October 2012 was dismissed, with costs payable to the first respondent.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application to vary Order 5 made by the Court on 25 October 2012 be dismissed." "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of this application."]