FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Jackson, in the matter of Conway v Conway [2000] FCA 1604
IN THE MATTER OF DENISE CONWAY
ALAN JACKSON v DENISE CONWAY
N 7833 of 2000BRANSON J
SYDNEY
31 OCTOBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 7833 of 2000
IN THE MATTER OF DENISE CONWAY
BETWEEN:
ALAN JACKSON
APPLICANTAND:
DENISE CONWAY
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The respondent pay the applicant his costs of the bankruptcy notice of 6 September 2000 to the extent that such costs were not also costs of or in respect of the bankruptcy notice of 12 September 2000.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 7833 of 2000
IN THE MATTER OF DENISE CONWAY
BETWEEN:
ALAN JACKSON
APPLICANTAND:
DENISE CONWAY
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE:
31 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR DECISION
The respondent creditor caused a bankruptcy notice to be served on the applicant on 6 September 2000. On 12 September 2000 a further bankruptcy notice issued by the respondent creditor was served on the applicant. The two bankruptcy notices were founded on the same judgment debt. They differed only in the amount of interest claimed on the judgment debt. It was not until his receipt of a letter dated 25 September 2000 from the respondent creditor’s solicitors that the applicant was advised that the respondent creditor abandoned reliance on the first bankruptcy notice.
By that time the applicant had filed applications in the Court to set aside both of the bankruptcy notices or alternatively for an order to extend the time for compliance with them. On 10 October 2000 a Registrar ordered by consent that the first bankruptcy notice be set aside. The Registrar stood over the question of costs until 17 October 2000. The parties made submissions to me on 17 October 2000 on the question of the costs of the first bankruptcy notice.
The costs thrown away by the applicant by reason of the service on him of the first bankruptcy notice will be limited. The applications made to the Court with respect to that bankruptcy notice were the same applications as were made with respect to the second bankruptcy notice and the supporting documentation filed was closely similar in each case. Nonetheless, such costs as were incurred by the applicant in respect of the first notice which were not also costs of or in respect of the second bankruptcy notice should, in my view, be met by the respondent creditor. I so order.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Decision herein of the Honourable Justice Branson. Associate:
Dated: 9 November 2000
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Freeman Solicitor for the Applicant: Coode and Corry Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Knaggs Solicitor for the Respondent: Douglas Knaggs Date of Hearing: 17 October 2000 Date of Judgment: 31 October 2000
- AGLC
- Jackson, in the matter of Conway v Conway [2000] FCA 1604
- Case
- [2000] FCA 1604
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the applicant was entitled to recover the costs of the first bankruptcy notice and if the respondent was liable for those costs. The central question was whether the respondent's conduct warranted the imposition of costs on the respondent for the first notice, considering the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the second notice. The court had to weigh the applicant's entitlement to costs against the respondent's position and the relevance of the second notice to the costs incurred for the first notice.
The court examined the circumstances leading to the issuance of the two bankruptcy notices and the interplay between them. It concluded that the respondent's conduct justified the imposition of costs for the first notice, but not for the second. The respondent's conduct was deemed to have been such that it warranted the applicant recovering costs for the first notice. However, since the second notice was issued in a different context, the court held that the costs of the first notice should not be offset by the costs of the second. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant his costs of the first bankruptcy notice to the extent that such costs were not also costs of or in respect of the second notice.
The final orders of the court were that the respondent pay the applicant the costs of the first bankruptcy notice to the extent that they were not also costs of or in respect of the second notice. This decision highlighted the court's careful consideration of the specific circumstances of each notice and the implications for the imposition of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent pay the applicant his costs of the bankruptcy notice of 6 September 2000 to the extent that such costs were not also costs of or in respect of the bankruptcy notice of 12 September 2000.
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
Established by: BRANSON J
Full text does not contain this section.