Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel (No 2)

Case [2020] FCA 50


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel (No 2) [2020] FCA 50

File number: NSD 1722 of 2019
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 4 February 2020
Catchwords: COSTS – application by cross-claimant for lump-sum costs order – application granted
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 51A
Cases cited: Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel [2019] FCA 1965
Date of hearing: 21 November 2019
Date of last submissions: 3 December 2019
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:  General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 6
Counsel for the Cross-Claimant: Mr P Cutler
Solicitor for the Cross-Claimant: SKM Lawyers
Counsel for the First Cross-Respondent: Mr L Corbett
Solicitor for the Second Cross-Respondent: The Second Cross-Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 1722 of 2019
BETWEEN:

SHABNAM AMIRBEAGGI IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF JOHN MAMDOUH HANNA

Applicant

AND:

MINA ROUSAFLAH YOUSSEF KAMEL

First Respondent

HEDRA FAYEZ NASHED ABDALLA

Second Respondent

REGISTRAR GENERAL OF NSW

Third Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

HEDRA FAYEZ NASHED ABDALLA

Cross-Claimant

AND:

SHABNAM AMIRBEAGGI IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF JOHN MAMDOUH HANNA (and another named in the Schedule)

First Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

YATES J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The second cross-respondent pay the cross-claimant’s costs in the sum of $5,880.50.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YATES J:

  1. The cross-claimant seeks a lump-sum costs order against the second cross-respondent in the sum of $5,880.50. 

  2. On 21 November 2019, default judgment against the second cross-respondent was given in favour of the cross-claimant in the sum of $325,000.00, with pre-judgment interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in the sum of $32,591.27: Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel [2019] FCA 1965.

  3. At the time, the cross-claimant foreshadowed that a lump-sum costs order would be sought.  As a consequence, I made programming orders for the filing of affidavits by the cross-claimant and the second cross-respondent on that question.  I also ordered that the question of costs be determined on the papers.  Further, I ordered that, by 28 November 2019, the cross-claimant serve a copy of the orders made on 21 November 2019 on the second cross-respondent.  The cross-claimant has complied with that order.

  4. The cross-claimant’s solicitor, Ms Metry, has made an affidavit in support of the order that is sought.  This affidavit has been served on the second cross-respondent.  The second cross-respondent has not filed any affidavit(s) in response.  Given that state of affairs, I will determine the question of costs on the material presently before me.

  5. This is an appropriate case for making a lump-sum costs order.  On the basis of Ms Metry’s affidavit, I am satisfied that the amount sought is appropriate. 

  6. An order for costs will be made accordingly.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Yates.

Associate:       

Dated:       4 February 2020


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

NSD 1722 of 2019

Cross-Respondents

Second Cross-Respondent

JARVIS J PTY LTD (ACN 620 436 571)

Details
AGLC
Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna v Kamel (No 2) [2020] FCA 50
Case
[2020] FCA 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the trustee of the bankrupt estate of John Mamdouh Hanna, represented by Amirbeaggi, as the applicant against Kamel, the second cross-respondent. The dispute centred around the costs associated with the litigation, specifically an application by the cross-claimant for a lump-sum costs order. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the cross-claimant was entitled to a lump-sum costs order under the applicable rules and principles governing legal costs in the Federal Court. The court had to consider the nature of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the principles guiding the assessment and award of costs.

The court determined that the cross-claimant was entitled to the lump-sum costs order sought. The reasoning included a consideration of the nature of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the cross-claimant had acted reasonably and in good faith, and that the costs sought were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the application and ordered the second cross-respondent to pay the cross-claimant's costs in the sum of $5,880.50. The entry of this order was in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second cross-respondent pay the cross-claimant’s costs in the sum of $5,880.50.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JARVIS J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JARVIS J

Full text does not contain this section.