Fazio (Executor) v Passmore (No 2)

[2011] FCA 371

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fazio (Executor) v Passmore (No 2) [2011] FCA 371

Citation:		Fazio (Executor) v Passmore (No 2) [2011] FCA 371
Parties:		ARTURO FAZIO AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMANTHA UNDERDOWN v VINCENSA PASSMORE
File number:		WAD 287 of 2010
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		13 April 2011
Date of hearing:		On the papers.
Date of last submissions:	1 April 2011
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant filed no submissions.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms K Levy
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Kott Gunning

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 287 of 2010

BETWEEN:	ARTURO FAZIO AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMANTHA UNDERDOWN Applicant
AND:	VINCENSA PASSMORE Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 APRIL 2011
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be taxed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 287 of 2010

BETWEEN:	ARTURO FAZIO AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE SAMANTHA UNDERDOWN Applicant
AND:	VINCENSA PASSMORE Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	13 APRIL 2011
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 25 March 2011, I delivered reasons for judgment.  On that occasion, the Court made orders extending the time within which the applicant could bring an application for review of the orders made by District Registrar Jan of this Court in WAD 4 of 2010 for the administration of the late Ms Samantha Underdown’s estate, but dismissed the applicant’s application for review.  Mr Arturo Fazio, in his capacity as executor of the estate of the late Ms Underdown, was the applicant.

2. Mr Fazio advised the Court in advance that he would not be able to attend Court for the delivery of the reasons for judgment.  Accordingly, at the time of delivery of the reasons for judgment, I made orders that each party was to file and serve any written submissions as to the costs of the application by 4:00 pm on 1 April 2011.

3. The respondent, Ms Passmore, has filed submissions in respect of costs.  However, the applicant has not done so.

4. The respondent seeks orders that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.  The respondent also seeks an order under O 64 r 4 of the Federal Court Rules that the applicant pay costs fixed in the sum of $2,427.00.

5. In my view, there is no reason to depart from the usual order for costs, namely, that costs follow the event.  However, I am not minded to award costs in the fixed sum requested by the respondent.  On the face of it, the amount sought appears to be reasonable, but, in my view, it is appropriate that the costs be assessed by a taxing officer.

6. Accordingly, I will order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application to be taxed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Associate:

Dated:       13 April 2011