Frigger v Trenfield (No 4)

[2021] FCA 1472

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Frigger v Trenfield (No 4) [2021] FCA 1472  

File number:

WAD 66 of 2021

Judgment of:

LOGAN J

Date of judgment:

24 November 2021

Catchwords:

COSTS – where applicants had filed an interlocutory application seeking to vacate the orders of the Court adjourning the applicants’ application – where applicants had not opposed the adjournment application – where applicants’ interlocutory application was dismissed – where applicants’ allege conduct of second respondent is contravention of s 37M and s 37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – no such breach proved – where first respondent submit costs should be fixed in the sum $1,000.00 – no basis for the Court for such sum – costs awarded against the applicants in a sum to be fixed

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N

Cases cited:

Frigger v Trenfield (No 2) [2021] FCA 1255

Frigger v Trenfield (No 3) [2021] FCA 1471

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Western Australia

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

General and Personal Insolvency

Number of paragraphs:

13

Date of last submissions filed by the Applicant:

11 November 2021

Date of last submissions filed by the Second Respondent:

15 November 2021

Date of last submissions filed by the First Respondent:

16 November 2021

Date of hearing:

Heard on the papers

Counsel for the Applicants:

The Applicants appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr SD Majteles

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Carles Solicitors

Solicitor for the Second Respondent:

Herbert Smith Freehills

ORDERS

WAD 66 of 2021

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER

First Applicant

HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER

Second Applicant

AND:

KELLY TRENFIELD

First Respondent

MERVYN JOHN KITAY

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 NOVEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the dismissal on 4 November 2021 of their deemed interlocutory application, to be fixed by a Registrar if not agreed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOGAN J:

1. On 18 August 2021, for reasons given that day ex tempore, I ordered that an interim application filed on 26 July 2021 by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Frigger, be adjourned to a date to be fixed, pending the outcome of the proceeding of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (COR 131 of 2021). These reasons for judgment must be read in conjunction with that earlier judgment: Frigger v Trenfield (No 2) [2021] FCA 1255.

2. As I record in that earlier judgment, that adjournment was not opposed by Mr and Mrs Frigger.

3. Later, Mr and Mrs Frigger came to think better of their absence of opposition to the adjournment of their application. On 20 October 2021, they sent a letter to my Associate the effect of which was to seek an order that the adjournment order made on 18 August…