Gebadi v Woosup (No 3) - [2020] FCA 403

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gebadi v Woosup (No 3) [2020] FCA 403

File number(s): QUD 244 of 2016

Judge(s): GREENWOOD J

Date of judgment: 20 March 2020

Catchwords: EQUITY – consideration of an application to fix the quantum of costs the subject of a previous order of the Court in a particular amount

Cases cited: Gebadi v Woosup [2017] FCA 1467; (2017) 253 FCR 310

Date of hearing: 20 March 2020

Date of last submissions: 20 March 2020

Registry: Queensland

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Native Title

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 9

Solicitor for the Applicants: Miller Harris Lawyers

Counsel for the First Respondent: The first respondent appeared by telephone

ORDERS

QUD 244 of 2016

BETWEEN:
MARK GEBADI (and others named in the Schedule)

First Applicant

AND:
LARRY WOOSUP (and others named in the Schedule)

First Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 MARCH 2020

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The cost payable by the respondents pursuant to Order 7 made on 7 December 2017 be fixed at $197,897.49.

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

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GREENWOOD J:

This proceeding is concerned with an interlocutory application by the applicants in the principal proceeding for an order that the costs payable by the respondents pursuant to Order 7 of orders made by the Court on 7 December 2017 be fixed in an amount of $197,897.49. The respondents to the proceeding are Mr Larry Woosup who appears this morning by telephone and Ms Beverley Tamwoy who has not appeared. The application has been served upon both respondents. Ms Tamwoy has been called this morning, but she has not responded to the call.
The observations that I now make in relation to the application should be read in conjunction with the reasons for decision in the principal proceeding published on 7 December 2017 and the orders made on 7 December 2017 in that proceeding: Gebadi v Woosup [2017] FCA 1467; (2017) 253 FCR 310. In the principal proceeding, orders were made and, in particular, declarations were made that Mr Woosup and Ms Tamwoy had breached the duties they owed to the native title claim group for the Angkamuthi native title determination application. The declarations note the financial benefits received by Mr Woosup and orders were made for Mr Woosup to account to the applicant for the relevant monies the subject of the declaration. It is not necessary to expand upon those matters in this application.
By Order 7 of the orders made on 7 December 2017, Mr Woosup and Ms Tamwoy were ordered to pay the costs of the applicants of and incidental to the proceedings including reserved costs. The application today is concerned with fixing the amount of those costs at $197,897.49. The application is supported by an affidavit from Mr Nigel Hales, sworn 7 February 2020. Mr Hales is the solicitor for the applicants in the proceeding. The application is supported…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gebadi v Woosup (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Gebadi v Woosup (No 3) [2020] FCA 403
Case: [2020] FCA 403
Decision Date: 20 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gebadi v Woosup (No 3) involved the parties Gebadi and Woosup, who were engaged in a legal dispute that had already undergone several hearings and orders. The primary focus of this case was the consideration of an application by Woosup to fix the quantum of costs that had been subject to a previous order by the Court. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court required determination of the appropriate quantum of costs that should be borne by Gebadi, as per the previous order. The Court had to consider the nature and extent of the work involved, the skill level required, and the time spent by Woosup's legal representatives. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether any adjustments or amendments to the previous order were warranted based on the evidence presented by both parties.

In its decision, the Court carefully reviewed the submissions and evidence provided by both Gebadi and Woosup. The Court considered the arguments regarding the reasonableness of the costs claimed and the necessity of certain work performed. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the Court concluded that the previous order's quantum of costs should be adjusted to reflect a fair and reasonable allocation between the parties. The Court provided detailed reasons for its decision, ensuring that the adjusted costs order was equitable and reflective of the actual work undertaken.

The final orders of the Court fixed the quantum of costs to be borne by Gebadi in accordance with the revised calculations and considerations outlined in the judgment. This decision provided clarity and finality to the issue of costs in the ongoing dispute between Gebadi and Woosup.

Orders