Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 798

Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 798

The application to intervene was refused because the 10 January 2006 costs order was a final order, no existing party sought to reopen it, and there was no extant issue between the parties on which Mr Shiels could assist the Court under O 6 r 17. In any event, discretionary considerations weighed against intervention because it would complicate the proceedings, would not assist their efficient disposition, and could require inquiry into privileged communications and the conduct of the applicant, his solicitors and Mr Shiels.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Related Civil Proceedings by a Trustee in Bankruptcy Concerning Alleged Asset Dispositions / Application by Peter Leonard Shiels to Intervene Under O 6 R 17 to Reopen Costs Orders Made on 10 January 2006
Outcome
Application to intervene refused; costs orders made against Peter Leonard Shiels and the applicant.
Legal Topics
['intervention' 'final Costs Orders' 'costs Against Solicitors' 'trustee in Bankruptcy' 'interlocutory Procedure']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'costs'] ['intervention' 'final Costs Orders' 'costs Against Solicitors' 'trustee in Bankruptcy' 'interlocutory Procedure']

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 Related Civil Proceedings by a Trustee in Bankruptcy Concerning Alleged Asset Dispositions / Application by Peter Leonard Shiels to Intervene Under O 6 R 17 to Reopen Costs Orders Made on 10 January 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Peter Leonard Shiels should be permitted to intervene under O 6 r 17 to reopen costs orders made against the applicant on 10 January 2006.' "Whether O 62 r 9 supported an order making the applicant's solicitors responsible for those costs." 'Whether discretionary considerations favoured intervention in the existing proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to intervene was refused because the 10 January 2006 costs order was a final order, no existing party sought to reopen it, and there was no extant issue between the parties on which Mr Shiels could assist the Court under O 6 r 17. In any event, discretionary considerations weighed against intervention because it would complicate the proceedings, would not assist their efficient disposition, and could require inquiry into privileged communications and the conduct of the applicant, his solicitors and Mr Shiels.

Court Disposition

Application to intervene refused; costs orders made against Peter Leonard Shiels and the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Peter Leonard Shiels pay the costs of Colquhon Murphy, Solicitors of Canberra, of and incidental to the hearing today.' 'Peter Leonard Shiels pay the costs of and incidental to the hearing of his motion today of the first, second and third and fifth, eighth and eleventh respondents as those parties are described...