Gounder (Bankrupt) v Superior Alignments Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2024] FedCFamC2G 741
•12 August 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gounder (Bankrupt) v Superior Alignments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 741
File number(s): BRG 623 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE EGAN Date of judgment: 12 August 2024 Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – COSTS – where an application for annulment of an order for sequestration was dismissed – where the applicant bankrupt opposed the making of an adverse costs order – where costs ought to follow the event as the usual order – order accordingly. Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 12 Date of last submission/s: 12 August 2024 Date of hearing: 2 and 12 August 2024 Place: Brisbane Applicant: Ms Gounder, appearing on her own behalf Solicitor for the Respondent: Celtic Legal ORDERS
BRG 623 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
IN THE MATTER OF SHOBNA GOUNDER, BANKRUPT
BETWEEN: SHOBNA GOUNDER
Applicant
AND: SUPERIOR ALIGNMENTS PTY LTD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The order as to costs made on 2 August 2024 be vacated.
2.
The respondent’s party/party costs of and incidental to this application be paid out of the bankrupt estate as agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 22.02(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of
Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE EGAN
INTRODUCTION
In this matter, the Court handed down judgment on 2 August 2024.
The order of the Court was that the application for annulment filed on behalf of Ms Gounder on 29 May 2024 be dismissed.
Reasons for judgment were handed to each of the parties on 2 August 2024. On the occasion of the handing down of judgment on 2 August 2024, submissions were made as to costs. The Court was unaware, during the course of the making of costs submissions, that the audio quality of the Microsoft Teams hearing on that day was so poor that no party could hear clearly what the Court was saying.
In those circumstances, the Court vacated the costs order made on 2 August 2024, in favour of the respondent to the application for annulment.
The matter was listed for directions today to enable Ms Gounder to again make submissions as to costs in circumstances where she appeared in person before the Court.
Ms Gounder made submissions whereby she indicated that she had no money to enable her to pay any outstanding costs, and also that she disputed the amount of money due to be paid by way of costs, in any event. Otherwise, and without providing particulars, she indicated that she felt that the court process, whereby the annulment application was dismissed, was unfair.
During the course of argument, it became clear that Ms Gounder, though unhappy with the order of the Court, wished any costs order to be one whereby the costs order was to be the subject of an assessment of any costs. The Court had indicated that that was the Court’s usual practice.
In circumstances where a party has been unsuccessful in a matter such as this, the Court is of the view that it is appropriate that any costs ordered as payable to the respondent in resisting the applicant’s application for annulment should be paid out of the estate, but that such costs ought to be assessed. The applicant made no compelling submission that the usual order that costs should follow the event ought not to be made.
Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant should pay the respondent’s party/party costs of and incidental to this application out of the bankrupt estate, and that such costs be as agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 22.02(2)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.
And it is so ordered.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan. Associate:
Dated: 20 August 2024
0
0
0