Harrison v Eriksson [2016] FCA 924

Harrison v Eriksson [2016] FCA 924

The costs order made on 6 May 2016 is appropriate, is not on an indemnity basis, and allows the taxing officer to review costs for reasonableness. The order will not be varied, and the respondent is entitled to costs of defending the appellant's unsuccessful interlocutory application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'sequestration Orders' 'bankruptcy']
['commercial Law' 'insolvency Law'] ['costs' 'interlocutory Applications' 'sequestration Orders' 'bankruptcy']

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Application Regarding Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the costs order made on 6 May 2016 should be vacated or varied' 'Whether the costs should be paid by the appellant as agreed or taxed out of her bankrupt estate']

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order made on 6 May 2016 is appropriate, is not on an indemnity basis, and allows the taxing officer to review costs for reasonableness. The order will not be varied, and the respondent is entitled to costs of defending the appellant's unsuccessful interlocutory application.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's interlocutory application dated 5 June 2016 is dismissed." "The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of and in connection with the interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed, out of the appellant bankrupt's estate."]