Husseini v Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd (Costs) [2024] FCAFC 165

Husseini v Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd (Costs) [2024] FCAFC 165

The appellant was ultimately successful in defeating the claims against him and in the ordinary course is entitled to costs of defending those claims, as are successful respondents. Issues about who paid the solicitors can be determined on taxation, not as a precondition to making the costs order.

Parties
Appellant: Samer Husseini; First Respondent: Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Karim Girgis; Third Respondent: Sherif Elhamy Wadie Girgis; Fourth Respondent: Paul Chau; Fifth Respondent: Activ Health Clubs Pty Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Richard Kim; Seventh Respondent: Advanced Club Management Pty Ltd; Eighth Respondent: Laziz Mirdjonov; Ninth Respondent: Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd ACN 607 187 860; Tenth Respondent: Mazen Hagemrad
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Decision After Successful Appeal
Outcome
varied orders as to costs; costs orders made in appellant’s favour; issues about actual payment to be dealt with on taxation
Legal Topics
Costs After Appeal, Indemnity Principle, Party and Party Costs, Variation of Orders
Costs Commercial Law Costs After Appeal Indemnity Principle Party and Party Costs Variation of Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samer Husseini

Appellant

Girchow Enterprises Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Karim Girgis

Second Respondent

Sherif Elhamy Wadie Girgis

Third Respondent

Paul Chau

Fourth Respondent

Activ Health Clubs Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Richard Kim

Sixth Respondent

Advanced Club Management Pty Ltd

Seventh Respondent

Laziz Mirdjonov

Eighth Respondent

Ultimate Franchising Group Pty Ltd ACN 607 187 860

Ninth Respondent

Mazen Hagemrad

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Decision After Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper order for costs after successful appeal
  2. 2 Whether to remit issues to the primary judge due to indemnity principle
  3. 3 Entitlement to payment of costs held as security

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was ultimately successful in defeating the claims against him and in the ordinary course is entitled to costs of defending those claims, as are successful respondents. Issues about who paid the solicitors can be determined on taxation, not as a precondition to making the costs order.

Court Disposition

varied orders as to costs; costs orders made in appellant’s favour; issues about actual payment to be dealt with on taxation

Orders

  • The sum of $60,000 paid into court by the appellant, with interest, be paid to the appellant on his solicitors’ instruction.
  • Order 2 in this Court on 12 November 2024 varied: 'first, fifth and seventh' respondents to pay the appellant's costs of appeal to be taxed if not agreed.