Macchia v Nilant [2000] FCA 537

Macchia v Nilant [2000] FCA 537

No costs order was made because, although the trustee opposed the successful remedial application and caused unnecessary expense by maintaining reliance on the notice objecting to discharge, the applicant also caused unnecessary costs by maintaining until a late stage an alternative application to remove the trustee. The Court considered the parties' respective interests in costs to be evenly balanced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding; Costs Determination Following Application for Remedial Orders / After Remedial Order Under S 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth), on Written Submissions as to Costs
Outcome
There be no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['remedial Orders for Defect or Irregularity' 'statement of Affairs' 'objection to Discharge From Bankruptcy' 'removal of Trustee' 'no Order as to Costs' 'costs Certificates']
['bankruptcy' 'costs'] ['remedial Orders for Defect or Irregularity' 'statement of Affairs' 'objection to Discharge From Bankruptcy' 'removal of Trustee' 'no Order as to Costs' 'costs Certificates']

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 Proceeding; Costs Determination Following Application for Remedial Orders / After Remedial Order Under S 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth), on Written Submissions as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an order for costs should be made after the applicant obtained remedial orders opposed by the respondent trustee.' "Whether the trustee's maintenance and later withdrawal of the notice objecting to discharge from bankruptcy justified a costs order in favour of the applicant." "Whether the applicant's abandoned application to remove the trustee justified refusing or adjusting a costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order was made because, although the trustee opposed the successful remedial application and caused unnecessary expense by maintaining reliance on the notice objecting to discharge, the applicant also caused unnecessary costs by maintaining until a late stage an alternative application to remove the trustee. The Court considered the parties' respective interests in costs to be evenly balanced.

Court Disposition

There be no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs.']