FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bechara v Bates (No 2) [2018] FCA 583
Appeal from: Bates v Bechara (No 2) [2017] FCCA 985 File number: NSD 981 of 2017 Judge: PERRY J Date of judgment: 30 April 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for a lump sum costs orders – relevant principles discussed – where circumstances warrant lump sum costs order –quantification of lump sum costs order Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: Hislop v Paltar Petroleum Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 1632
Nine Films and Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd [2006] FCA 1046
Date of hearing: 15 March 2018 Date of last submissions: 17 April 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 13 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Kumar Solicitor for the Applicant: Weighbridge Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P W Bates Solicitor for the Respondent: Bannister Law ORDERS
NSD 981 of 2017 BETWEEN: MARIA BECHARA
Applicant
AND: PHILIP BATES
Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRY J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 APRIL 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6000.00.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRY J:
By a decision given on 6 April 2018, I refused the grant of an extension of time within which Ms Bechara, the applicant, could seek leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) given on 3 March 2017: Bechara v Bates [2018] FCA 460 (Bechara (No. 1)). The FCC in turn had dismissed an application for reinstatement of the proceeding under r 16.05(5)(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), after dismissal of the proceedings for non-appearance and lack of due diligence in prosecution on 8 December 2016.
I reserved the question of costs in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to be heard on Mr Bates’ application for a lump-sum costs order under Rule 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR) in the sum of $7238.00 (inclusive of GST) because this application was supported by evidence provided only at the hearing of the application for an extension of time on 15 March 2018: Bechara (No. 1) at [37]. At delivery of judgment I heard short oral submissions and ruled that this was an appropriate case for the award of costs on a lump-sum basis. As the applicant was not adequately prepared to argue quantum of the lump sum on 6 April 2018 when judgment on the extension of time application was delivered, I made timetabling orders for the provision of short submissions as to the quantum of costs.
The discretion to award costs in a specified sum…
Continue reading Bechara v Bates (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bechara v Bates (No 2) [2018] FCA 583
- Case
- [2018] FCA 583
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the relevant principles governing lump sum costs orders, noting the need for a structured approach to ensure fairness and proportionality. It examined the nature of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, and the efficiency of the litigation process. The court acknowledged the principle that a lump sum costs order may be appropriate in cases where detailed itemisation would be disproportionate or impracticable. However, it also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the order accurately reflects the costs incurred.
Upon reviewing the evidence and submissions, the court found that the circumstances did warrant a lump sum costs order. It determined that the respondent’s request for $6000 was reasonable and reflective of the costs incurred. The court thus ordered that the applicant was to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6000. This decision was made in accordance with the principles of fairness and the need for an efficient resolution of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6000.00.
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
Full text does not contain this section.