George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) - [2010] FCAFC 71

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71

Citation: George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71

Appeal from: Fletcher v George & Ors (No 6) [2009] FMCA 69

Parties: LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT) v WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE, DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD ACN 008 126 387, DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED and SUSAN WILSON

File number: QUD 47 of 2009

Judges: RYAN, MARSHALL & LOGAN JJ

Date of judgment: 18 June 2010

Catchwords: COSTS – Appeal by litigant in person allowed in part – Compensation for time spent in preparation and conduct of case – Whether entitlement to costs as a result – Whether litigant in person a ‘legal practitioner’ as a result of accreditation as a mediator – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 55B and s 55C; Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43

Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55B, 55C

Cases cited: Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 applied
George v Fletcher (Trustee) [2010] FCAFC 53 cited
London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 cited
Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Boswell (No 2) (1992) 39 FCR 288 cited

Date of hearing: 28 May 2010

Date of last submissions filed on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents: 4 June 2010

Date of last submissions filed on behalf of the Fourth Respondent: 4 June 2010

Date of last submissions filed on behalf of the Appellant: 8 June 2010

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 22

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr CD Coulsen

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Holman Webb Lawyers

Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Bell Dixon Butler

Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent: Thynne & Macartney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 47 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT)
Appellant

AND:
WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE
First Respondent

DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD ACN 008 126 387
Second Respondent

DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE
Third Respondent

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

SUSAN WILSON
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:

RYAN, MARSHALL & LOGAN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 JUNE 2010

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.There be no order as to costs in respect of the appeal and of the application for leave to appeal.

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

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 47 of 2009

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
LAUREN KAY GEORGE…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] FCAFC 71
Decision Date: 18 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) involved George, a litigant in person, who appealed a decision of the Federal Court concerning costs incurred during the litigation process. George contested the decision regarding the amount of compensation he was entitled to for the time he spent preparing and conducting his case. Additionally, George sought to determine whether his status as an accredited mediator qualified him as a "legal practitioner" for the purposes of claiming costs under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of "legal practitioner" and the circumstances under which costs could be awarded to a litigant in person who has been accredited as a mediator.

The court examined the statutory definitions and the legislative intent behind the relevant provisions. It was noted that "legal practitioner" typically refers to someone who is a member of a legal profession and holds a practising certificate. The court considered whether George’s accreditation as a mediator could be considered equivalent to being a legal practitioner. The court held that while George’s accreditation as a mediator evidenced his competence and involvement in legal processes, it did not confer upon him the status of a legal practitioner as defined by the statutes. Consequently, George was not eligible to claim costs as a legal practitioner. However, the court did acknowledge the significant time and effort George had invested in the litigation process and found that he was entitled to compensation for that time under the general provisions for costs.

Ultimately, the court determined that no order should be made as to costs in respect of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning was that while George had expended considerable time and effort, his status as an accredited mediator did not equate to being a legal practitioner under the statutes. The court's decision highlighted the distinction between being a mediator and a legal practitioner, and the implications this had on the entitlement to costs. The final orders were made accordingly, with no costs being awarded for the appeal and the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There be no order as to costs in respect of the appeal and of the application for leave to appeal.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71
Appeal from:		Fletcher v George & Ors (No 6) [2009] FMCA 69
Parties:		LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT) v WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE, DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD ACN 008 126 387, DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED and SUSAN WILSON
File number:		QUD 47 of 2009
Judges:		RYAN, MARSHALL & LOGAN JJ
Date of judgment:		18 June 2010
Catchwords:		COSTS – Appeal by litigant in person allowed in part – Compensation for time spent in preparation and conduct of case – Whether entitlement to costs as a result – Whether litigant in person a ‘legal practitioner’ as a result of accreditation as a mediator – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 55B and s 55C; Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43
Legislation:		Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55B, 55C
Cases cited:		Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 applied George v Fletcher (Trustee) [2010] FCAFC 53 cited London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 cited Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Boswell (No 2) (1992) 39 FCR 288 cited
Date of hearing:	28 May 2010
Date of last submissions filed on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents:	4 June 2010

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 47 of 2009

JUDGES:	RYAN, MARSHALL & LOGAN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	18 JUNE 2010
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE