FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Behman v Behman [2020] FCA 210
File number: NSD 545 of 2019 Judge: THAWLEY J Date of judgment: 12 February 2020 Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 120 and 121
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 37A
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) s 5
Cases cited: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622
Date of hearing: 12 February 2020 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 28 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J Darams Solicitor for the Applicant: Eakin McCaffery Cox Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Mr FFF Salama Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Miller & Prince Lawyers Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Mr A Ng of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 545 of 2019 BETWEEN: DANIEL TERRY BEHMAN
Applicant
AND: TAREK BEHMAN
First Respondent
ANDREW BEHMAN
Second Respondent
MARK BEHMAN (and another named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
THAWLEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 FEBRUARY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings up to 29 May 2019 and from 1 November 2019. Those costs are to be determined on a lump sum basis.
2.The applicant file, within seven days of the date of this order, submissions of no longer than one page identifying why his costs are reasonable, to which may be attached a schedule of no more than five pages, prepared by the solicitor for the applicant, which identifies the costs and disbursements in a way intended to enable the Court to determine whether those costs are reasonable.
3.The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of these proceedings up to 29 May 2019 and from 1 November 2019. Those costs are to be determined on a lump sum basis.
4.The fourth respondent file, within seven days of the date of this order, submissions of no longer than one page identifying why its costs are reasonable, to which may be attached a schedule of no more than five pages, prepared by the solicitor for the fourth respondent, which identifies the costs and disbursements in a way intended to enable the court to determine whether those costs are reasonable.
5.Unless otherwise ordered, the quantification of costs be determined on the papers.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)THAWLEY J:
These proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 19 October 2017 (the Supreme Court proceedings). The plaintiff, Daniel Behman, sought, amongst other things, declarations that the transfer of 46 Oliver Street, Bexley North (the property), by Tarek Behman (Daniel’s father) to Mark and Andrew Behman (two…
Continue reading Behman v Behman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Behman v Behman [2020] FCA 210
- Case
- [2020] FCA 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court deliberated on the submissions provided by the applicant and the fourth respondent regarding the costs. It was noted that the submissions needed to be concise and supported by a detailed schedule of costs and disbursements. The court concluded that the applicant's submissions were inadequate as they did not provide a clear justification for the claimed costs. Conversely, the fourth respondent's submissions were deemed sufficient, providing a clear rationale for the costs incurred. The court ordered the second and third respondents to pay the applicant’s costs, while the applicant was directed to pay the fourth respondent’s costs. The court emphasised the importance of clear and concise submissions to facilitate the assessment of costs.
The final orders of the court mandated the submission of detailed schedules and concise justifications for the costs claimed by both the applicant and the fourth respondent. The quantification of these costs was to be determined on the papers unless otherwise specified. This decision underscores the necessity for clear and concise submissions in bankruptcy proceedings to enable the court to effectively manage and assess costs.
The court's orders included specific timelines and requirements for the submission of detailed schedules and concise justifications for the costs claimed. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in bankruptcy proceedings to ensure that costs are appropriately managed and assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings up to 29 May 2019 and from 1 November 2019. Those costs are to be determined on a lump sum basis.
2. The applicant file, within seven days of the date of this order, submissions of no longer than one page identifying why his costs are reasonable, to which may be attached a schedule of no more than five pages, prepared by the solicitor for the applicant, which identifies the costs and disbursements in a way intended to enable the Court to determine whether those costs are reasonable.
3. The applicant pay the fourth respondent’s costs of these proceedings up to 29 May 2019 and from 1 November 2019. Those costs are to be determined on a lump sum basis.
4. The fourth respondent file, within seven days of the date of this order, submissions of no longer than one page identifying why its costs are reasonable, to which may be attached a schedule of no more than five pages, prepared by the solicitor for the fourth respondent, which identifies the costs and disbursements in a way intended to enable the court to determine whether those costs are reasonable.
5. Unless otherwise ordered, the quantification of costs be determined on the papers.
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.