Clyne, Peter Leopold v O'Brien, John William & Ors [1984] FCA 247

Clyne, Peter Leopold v O'Brien, John William & Ors [1984] FCA 247

The applicant, Mr. Clyne, having had the legal question of leave to intervene decided against him and the Commissioner having only limited success on the discretionary aspect, the proper order is that Mr. Clyne pay one half of the costs incurred by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in that part of the proceedings. As for the substantive application, considering the Deputy Commissioner conducted most of the opposition though the trustees had primary responsibility and Mr. Clyne had some limited success, the appropriate order is that Mr. Clyne pay two-thirds of the Commissioner’s costs.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Leopold Clyne; Respondent: John William O'Brien; Respondent: William Edward Andrew; Respondent: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1984
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Costs Applications Following Substantive and Procedural Decisions
Outcome
Orders as to costs made in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation against Mr. Clyne for one-half costs for the 14 March 1984 judgment and two-thirds costs for the 27 June 1984 judgment.
Legal Topics
Costs, Intervention, Leave to Intervene
Bankruptcy Costs Intervention Leave to Intervene

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Leopold Clyne

Applicant

John William O'Brien

Respondent

William Edward Andrew

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Costs Applications Following Substantive and Procedural Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court had power to grant leave to intervene
  2. 2 Whether, as a matter of discretion, leave to intervene should be granted
  3. 3 Whether and to what extent the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation should be awarded costs after interlocutory and substantive proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, Mr. Clyne, having had the legal question of leave to intervene decided against him and the Commissioner having only limited success on the discretionary aspect, the proper order is that Mr. Clyne pay one half of the costs incurred by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in that part of the proceedings. As for the substantive application, considering the Deputy Commissioner conducted most of the opposition though the trustees had primary responsibility and Mr. Clyne had some limited success, the appropriate order is that Mr. Clyne pay two-thirds of the Commissioner’s costs.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs made in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation against Mr. Clyne for one-half costs for the 14 March 1984 judgment and two-thirds costs for the 27 June 1984 judgment.

Orders

  • Peter Leopold Clyne to pay one-half of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the decision dated 14 March 1984.
  • Peter Leopold Clyne to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the decision dated 27 June 1984.