Royal v El Ali (No 3) [2016] FCA 1573

Royal v El Ali (No 3) [2016] FCA 1573

The applicants are entitled to lump-sum costs orders on a party/party basis, apportioned between the two proceedings based on logical, fair, and reasonable expert methodology; contingent liability under costs agreements suffices for indemnity principle; breaches of Legal Profession Act disclosure requirements do not affect inter-partes costs; costs orders will be joint and several among respondents.

Parties
Applicant: PETER PAUL ROYAL; Applicant: JUDITH LOUISE ROYAL; Applicant: MICHAEL GREGORY JONES IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF NATHAN EL ALI; Respondent: NATHAN EL ALI; Respondent: MAHMOUD EL ALI; Respondent: MAHMOUD ZREIKA; Respondent: SARACEN HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED; Respondent: OTTOMAN INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED; Respondent: OTSI STOJANOVSKI; Respondent: JOHN RENE NAZLOOMIAN; Respondent: ISAAC & JACOB PTY LIMITED
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Trial; Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made; respondents jointly and severally liable to pay applicants lump-sum costs in specified amounts for each proceeding; orders stayed until 2 February 2017 or further order.
Legal Topics
Lump Sum Costs Orders, Apportionment of Costs, Joint and Several Liability, Indemnity Principle, Party/party Vs Solicitor/client Costs, Legal Profession Act Compliance
Bankruptcy Commercial Law Corporations Law Legal Costs Lump Sum Costs Orders Apportionment of Costs Joint and Several Liability Indemnity Principle +2 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PETER PAUL ROYAL

Applicant

JUDITH LOUISE ROYAL

Applicant

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF NATHAN EL ALI

Applicant

NATHAN EL ALI

Respondent

MAHMOUD EL ALI

Respondent

MAHMOUD ZREIKA

Respondent

SARACEN HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Respondent

OTTOMAN INVESTMENTS PTY LIMITED

Respondent

OTSI STOJANOVSKI

Respondent

JOHN RENE NAZLOOMIAN

Respondent

ISAAC & JACOB PTY LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Trial; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is appropriate and practicable to make lump-sum costs orders
  2. 2 Fairness and reasonableness of apportionment methodology between two proceedings
  3. 3 Impact of Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) non-compliance on inter-partes costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are entitled to lump-sum costs orders on a party/party basis, apportioned between the two proceedings based on logical, fair, and reasonable expert methodology; contingent liability under costs agreements suffices for indemnity principle; breaches of Legal Profession Act disclosure requirements do not affect inter-partes costs; costs orders will be joint and several among respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made; respondents jointly and severally liable to pay applicants lump-sum costs in specified amounts for each proceeding; orders stayed until 2 February 2017 or further order.

Orders

  • The respondents pay the applicants' costs fixed in the sum of $442,668 (NSD 1731 of 2013).
  • The respondents pay the applicants' costs fixed in the sum of $212,166 (NSD 771 of 2014).