Harrison v Eriksson

[2016] FCA 924

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harrison v Eriksson [2016] FCA 924

Appeal from:	Harrison v Eriksson [2015] FCCA 2963
File number:	ACD 138 of 2015
Judge:	JAGOT J
Date of judgment:	12 August 2016
Catchwords:	COSTS – interlocutory application to vacate costs orders – where appellant ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal as agreed or taxed
Cases cited:	Harrison v Eriksson [2015] FCCA 2963
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions:	8 August 2016
Registry:	Australian Capital Territory
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	General and Personal Insolvency
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	13
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Mr T Hall of Hall Partners
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D Hassall
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Capital Lawyers
Table of Corrections
12 August 2016	In order 2, “out of the appellant bankrupt’s estate” has been added following “or taxed”.

ORDERS

ACD 138 of 2015

BETWEEN:

RACHEL HARRISON

Appellant

AND:

CHRISTOPHER ERIKSSON

Respondent

JUDGE:	JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appellant’s interlocutory application dated 5 June 2016 be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and in connection with the interlocutory application, as agreed or taxed, out of the appellant bankrupt’s estate.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JAGOT J:

1. The remaining issue in this matter is costs.

2. Ms Harrison, the appellant, commenced this appeal in December 2015 but, at the same time, sought a stay of the appeal on the basis of other undetermined proceedings to set aside the default judgment against her which was the basis of the original debt she had been found to owe to the respondent.  She contended in the appeal that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia had erred in dismissing her application for an extension of time to review a decision of a Registrar dated 17 April 2014 to make a sequestration order against her.  In dismissing Ms Harrison’s application the primary judge observed that the matter was “utterly disproportionate – in every respect” (Harrison v Eriksson [2015] FCCA 2963) given that the unpaid debt was for $6,127 and the material filed by both parties for the purpose of the application was extensive and likely to have involved substantial cost far exceeding the debt itself (at [1] – [7]), the efforts gone to by the creditor (the respondent to this appeal) being described as “extraordinary” and those of Ms Harrison, it was said, “often bordered on the fanciful” (at [7]), thereby prompting the creditor to yet further efforts to combat Ms Harrison’s contentions (also at [7]).

3. The same observation, of utter disproportionality, might be applied to the present appeal, if only on the basis that it took Ms Harrison from December 2015 until 3 May 2016 to advise that she no longer intended to pursue the appeal.  In the interim, her appeal prompted the respondent to file, amongst…