Jeevaratnam and Anor v Combis and Anor (No.2)

[2020] FCCA 950

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEEVARATNAM & ANOR v COMBIS & ANOR (No.2) [2020] FCCA 950

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Ruling on costs application.

First Applicant: KANESARATNAM JEEVARATNAM

Second Applicant: JANANI JEEVARATNAM

First Respondent: NICK JIM COMBIS

Second Respondent: ROBYN ERSKINE

File Number: MLG 539 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge Burchardt

Hearing date: Not applicable

Date of Last Submission: 3 April 2020

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 29 April 2020

REPRESENTATION

Advocate for the Applicants: Not applicable

Solicitors for the Applicants: Self-represented

Advocate for the First Respondent: Not applicable

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Colin Biggers & Paisley

Advocate for the Second Respondent: Not applicable

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Piper Alderman

ORDERS

Amended pursuant to Rule 16.05(2)(e) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 on 29 April 2020.

1. The applicants to pay each of the Respondents’ costs fixed in the sum of $7,044.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

MLG 539 of 2020

KANESARATNAM JEEVARATNAM

First Applicant

JANANI JEEVARATNAM

Second Applicant

And

NICK JIM COMBIS

First Respondent

ROBYN ERSKINE

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. On 3 April 2020, I delivered judgment in this matter and ordered that the Form B2 Application filed by the applicants on 17 February 2020 be dismissed. I also ordered that the applicant file and serve any written submissions as to costs within 7 days and that unless otherwise ordered,  the matter of costs will be determined on the papers.

2. Both the first and second respondents had filed comprehensive written submissions in support of their application, which was of course successful, for summary dismissal of the application. In those written submissions only the second respondent expressly sought costs but both sides indicated when judgment was handed down that costs orders in the usual way were sought from the applicants.

3. The applicants did not file written submissions within the time set by my direction and on 16 April 2020, my associate emailed Mr Jeevaratnam, who had had sole carriage of the application on behalf of both applicants. This was done because of his self-representation. The email reminded Mr Jeevaratnam that he had been ordered to file written submissions as to costs within 7 days of 3 April 2020 and requested that written submissions be provided forthwith. No reply has been received.

4. The respondents have been wholly successful in the proceedings. Indeed their position that the applicants’ case had no reasonable prospects of success was manifestly made out. It is not necessary to cite authority for the obvious and entirely well-established proposition that ordinarily costs would follow the event. There is no reason whatsoever why in this instance costs should not follow the event and I will so order.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Burchardt

Associate: 

Date: 29 April 2020