FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Osborne v Gangemi (No 3) [2012] FCA 188
Citation: Osborne v Gangemi (No 3) [2012] FCA 188 Parties: RICHARD OSBORNE and KOUROSH JAFARI v ANTONIO GANGEMI, STEPHEN ROBERT DIXON (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR) and JOHN ADAMS (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR) File number: VID 742 of 2009 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 6 March 2012 Catchwords: COSTS – application to set aside a Personal Insolvency Agreement – whether allegations were made against Trustees personally sufficient to justify a costs order in favour of Trustees where Trustees were unsuccessful in their opposition to the application. Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Part X Cases cited: Osborne v Gangemi [2011] FCA 1252 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 18 Counsel for the Second Applicant: Mr M Gronow Solicitor for the Second Applicant: Christopher Bunnett Solicitor Counsel for the Third Applicant: Mr M Strang Solicitor for the Third Applicant: Melbourne Legal Partners Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr S Minahan Solicitor for the First Respondent: Abrahams Meese Lawyers Counsel for the Second and Third Respondent: Mr P Agardy Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondent: Lewis Holdway Lawyers Solicitor for Mr Pasquale Lanciana: NA Young & Co
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 742 of 2009
BETWEEN: RICHARD OSBORNE
Second ApplicantKOUROSH JAFARI
Third Applicant
AND: ANTONIO GANGEMI
First RespondentSTEPHEN ROBERT DIXON (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR)
Second RespondentJOHN ADAMS (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application of the second and third respondents for costs be dismissed.
2.The second and third respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the application and those of Pasquale Lanciana.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 742 of 2009
BETWEEN: RICHARD OSBORNE
Second ApplicantKOUROSH JAFARI
Third Applicant
AND: ANTONIO GANGEMI
First RespondentSTEPHEN ROBERT DIXON (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR)
Second RespondentJOHN ADAMS (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANTONIO GANGEMI, THE DEBTOR)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BROMBERG J
DATE:
6 MARCH 2012
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 4 November 2011, I made orders including the setting aside of the Personal Insolvency Agreement made by Antonio Gangemi (“Gangemi”) under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”). My reasons for judgment were also delivered on that day and are published as Osborne v Gangemi [2011] FCA 1252.
The orders that were made on 4 November 2011 reserved the question of the legal costs of the second and third respondents (“the Trustees”). An application has been made by the Trustees for an order for…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Osborne v Gangemi (No 3) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] FCA 188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the allegations made against the Trustees were of sufficient gravity to warrant an order for costs in their favour. The applicants argued that the Trustees' actions did not justify such an order, given that the Trustees ultimately failed in their attempt to uphold the PIA. The court had to balance the principle that costs should follow the outcome of a proceeding with the exceptional circumstances that may justify an order for costs against a party who is unsuccessful.
In its reasoning, the court found that the allegations against the Trustees, though serious, were not substantiated to the degree necessary to justify an order for costs in their favour. The court emphasised that costs orders are generally awarded to the prevailing party, and exceptional circumstances must be present to deviate from this norm. Given that the Trustees were unsuccessful in their opposition, and considering the nature of the allegations, the court deemed that the Trustees were not entitled to such an order. Consequently, the court dismissed the Trustees' application for costs and ordered that the Trustees pay the costs of the applicants and Lanciana.
The final orders of the court mandated that the application by the second and third respondents for costs be dismissed and that they pay the applicants' costs of the application, as well as those of Pasquale Lanciana. This decision underscores the importance of substantiating serious allegations with compelling evidence when seeking a costs order against an unsuccessful party.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application of the second and third respondents for costs be dismissed.
2. The second and third respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the application and those of Pasquale Lanciana.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
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
Full text does not contain this section.