Collins v Djunaedi (No 2)

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.