KANG v Goldsmith (No.2)

[2017] FCCA 848

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KANG v GOLDSMITH (No.2) [2017] FCCA 848

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Costs – principles of finality and the interests of the administration of justice warrant the fixing of the costs order – estimate of costs by the respondent of $4,000.00 appears manifestly reasonable – respondent incurred party/party costs in the present case – costs order made.

Applicant: EDWARD KANG

Respondent: BARRIE GOLDSMITH

File Number: SYG 619 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 27 April 2017

Date of Last Submission: 27 April 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr N Allan

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ziman Lawyers

The Respondent appeared in person.

ORDERS

1. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 619 of 2017

EDWARD KANG

Applicant

And

BARRIE GOLDSMITH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court notes that in this matter the respondent has succeeded. Costs follow the event. The subject matter of these proceedings arise out of a dispute between solicitor and client in respect of costs. Principles of finality and in the interests of the administration of justice warrant the fixing of the costs order by the court in the present case.

2. The respondent, Mr Goldsmith has indicated in that matter that he has incurred costs in the amount of $4,000.00. On the Court record in relation to these proceedings that estimate of costs by Mr Goldsmith appears manifestly reasonable. 

3. Whilst Mr Allan of Counsel, submitted that the matter should be the subject of an order for taxation or a more modest amount, I am satisfied that the respondent has incurred party/party costs in the present case in the amount of $4,000.00 and that it is appropriate to order the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $4,000.00.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 11 May 2017