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:
The cross-claimant seeks a lump-sum costs order against the second cross-respondent in the sum of $5,880.50.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
- 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 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: JARVIS J
Full text does not contain this section.