Throvena v Pitman [2002] FCAFC 238

Throvena v Pitman [2002] FCAFC 238

No error was demonstrated in the primary judge's exercise of discretion to order costs up to the date of effective release, as until that date, Pitman had not been released and Throvena had not established his release. As the proposed appeal had no prospects of success and the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt or likely substantial injustice, leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Application for Extension and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'effect of Releases on Proofs of Debt' 'interlocutory Orders']
['bankruptcy'] ['costs Discretion' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'effect of Releases on Proofs of Debt' 'interlocutory 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Application for Extension and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in ordering the appellants to pay the first respondent's costs up to and until his effective release" "Whether the primary judge should have ordered the first respondent to pay the appellants' costs" "Whether appellants were 'almost certain to have succeeded' if the matter had been fully tried" 'Whether extension of time to seek leave to appeal is warranted' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

No error was demonstrated in the primary judge's exercise of discretion to order costs up to the date of effective release, as until that date, Pitman had not been released and Throvena had not established his release. As the proposed appeal had no prospects of success and the decision was not attended with sufficient doubt or likely substantial injustice, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Time within which to seek leave to appeal extended to 12 August 2002.' 'Leave to appeal refused.' "Appellants to pay first respondent's costs of the application, including those ordered by Justice Hely on 6 June 2002, to be taxed if not agreed."]