Collins v Djunaedi (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
COLLINS & ANOR v DJUNAEDI & ORS (No 2)
[2016] SASCFC 63
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Stanley and The Honourable Justice Parker)
23 May 2016
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - POWERS OF COURT - COSTS
BANKRUPTCY - ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY - PROOF OF DEBTS - WHAT DEBTS PROVABLE - COSTS
Costs in appeal against a decision of a Judge of the District Court.
The respondents claim they paid money to the appellants in reliance upon certain pleaded misrepresentations.
Reasons for judgment previously delivered dismissing the appeal. The Court held that summary judgment was correctly entered in the District Court as there was no reasonable basis to defend the claim and that the Judge was correct in not continuing a stay of the proceedings.
The appellants were subsequently declared bankrupt. The respondents sought an order for costs of the appeal.
Held per Kourakis CJ (Stanley and Parker JJ agreeing):
1. Bankruptcy is not an impediment in making a costs order.
2. The appellant to pay the respondents costs.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58, referred to.
Collins & Anor v Djunaedi & Ors [2016] SASCFC 48; Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd (2007) 234 CLR 52, considered.

COLLINS & ANOR v DJUNAEDI & ORS (No 2)
[2016] SASCFC 63
Full Court: Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Parker JJ

THE COURT: On 11 May 2016 the Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against summary judgment entered against them in an action in which the respondents had claimed damages for fraud and misrepresentation.[1]
[1] Collins & Anor v Djunaedi & Ors [2016] SASCFC 48.
When judgment was delivered the appellants did not appear. The Court was informed by the appellants’ former solicitor and by the respondents’ counsel that the appellants were now bankrupt. The respondents sought costs. The Court invited submissions on whether the order should be made. The Court was referred to Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd.[2]
[2] (2007) 234 CLR 52.
The Court is satisfied that s 58(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) does not apply to the application for the costs of these proceedings. The Court orders that the appellants pay the respondents’ costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collins (the appellant) appealed against a costs order made by a single judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia in bankruptcy proceedings against Djunaedi (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's application to set aside a statutory demand. The single judge had dismissed the application and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs. The appellant sought to appeal this costs order.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appeal against the costs order should be permitted. This involved considering the principles governing appeals against costs orders, particularly in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, and whether the single judge had erred in principle or exercised their discretion improperly when making the costs order.

The Full Court held that an appeal against a costs order generally requires leave, unless the costs order is so fundamentally wrong that it amounts to an error of principle. In this instance, the Court found that the single judge's decision to award costs against the respondent was a proper exercise of discretion, reflecting the outcome of the application to set aside the statutory demand. The Court noted that the respondent had not demonstrated any error of principle or manifest unreasonableness in the costs order.

Consequently, the Full Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established