Angela Cecilia Theresa Frigger Hartmut Hubert Josef Frigger v Mervyn Jonathan Kitay in his capacity as liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (In Liq) and Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (In Liq) [No 10]

This case involved an appeal by the Friggers against a decision made by Colvin J regarding an indemnity costs order. The order was made in favour of Mr Kitay, who was the liquidator of Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd (CAT), and CAT itself. The Friggers argued that the costs order prevented them from setting off substantial claims against Mr Kitay in other proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the costs order was valid and if it was appropriate to amend the order to allow the Friggers to set off their claims against Mr Kitay.

The court considered the legal issues raised by the Friggers, including whether the costs order was valid and if it was appropriate to amend the order to allow the Friggers to set off their claims against Mr Kitay. The court also considered whether the application to amend the costs order was brought in an appropriate manner and whether there had been an inordinate delay in bringing the application. The court noted that the costs order was made in favour of both Mr Kitay and CAT, and that the bill of costs presented by both parties claimed only the costs that had been incurred by Mr Kitay. The court also noted that the costs order did not apply only to costs jointly incurred by Mr Kitay and CAT.

The court found that the costs order was valid and that it was not appropriate to amend the order to allow the Friggers to set off their claims against Mr Kitay. The court found that the application to amend the costs order was brought in an inappropriate manner and that there had been an inordinate delay in bringing the application. The court also found that the proper administration of justice and the finality of litigation required that the application be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed, and the Friggers were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

In conclusion, the court found that the costs order was valid and that it was not appropriate to amend the order to allow the Friggers to set off their claims against Mr Kitay. The court found that the application to amend the costs order was brought in an inappropriate manner and that there had been an inordinate delay in bringing the application. The appeal was dismissed, and the Friggers were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.