Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2)

Case [2013] FCA 104

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104

Citation: Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104
Appeal from: Application for Leave to Appeal: [2012] FCA 1087
Parties: GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT v KIM CHERIE WOODWARD
File number: VID 28 of 2013
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2013
Catchwords: COSTS – application by self-represented respondent for costs incurred in successfully resisting application for leave to appeal by applicants – respondent admitted as a lawyer under Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) but not entitled to represent private litigant in this court under Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether respondent entitled to recover costs on basis of exception in Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47
Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55B, 55C
Cases cited: Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47
Kenna v Conolly (1943) 17 ALJ 32
Rambaldi v Woodward [2013] FCA 89
Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Cawthorn SC with Mr A Bailey
Solicitor for the Applicant: B2B Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 28 of 2013
BETWEEN:

GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT
Applicant
AND:

KIM CHERIE WOODWARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 FEBRUARY 2013

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants pay the disbursements properly outlaid by the respondent in connection with the applicants’ application for leave to appeal.

2.Save as aforesaid, the respondent’s application for costs be dismissed.

3.With respect to costs related to the respondent’s application for costs the subject of Orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 8 February 2013, the parties have leave to file written submissions as follows:

(a)  the applicants, by 4:00 pm on 22 February 2013;

(b)  the respondent in response, by 4:00 pm on 26 February 2013;

(c)  the applicants in reply, if necessary, by 4:00 pm on 28 February 2013.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 28 of 2013
BETWEEN:

GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT
Applicant
AND:

KIM CHERIE WOODWARD
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

20 FEBRUARY 2013

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 8 February 2013, I refused the application of the applicants, Gess Michael Rambaldi and Andrew Reginald Yeo, trustees of the bankrupt estate of John Edward Atkinson, for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment made by the court on 13 December 2012: Rambaldi v Woodward [2013] FCA 89.…

Continue reading Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104
Case
[2013] FCA 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2), the applicants sought to appeal a decision of the Family Court, which had been upheld on appeal to the Full Court. The respondent, Woodward, who was not a legal practitioner, represented herself in the proceedings. Woodward had successfully resisted the applicants' application for leave to appeal. Following this, she applied for costs under section 62 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The central legal issue was whether Woodward, a qualified lawyer but not a recognised legal practitioner in the Federal Court, could recover costs under the exception set out in Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47.

The court considered the precedent in Guss v Veenhuizen, which established that a party could recover costs from another party if they were represented by a legal practitioner who was not entitled to appear in the court. However, the court found that this exception did not apply to Woodward's situation, as she was not a legal practitioner entitled to represent parties in the Federal Court. Consequently, the court held that Woodward was not entitled to recover costs for her work in resisting the application for leave to appeal.

The court did order that the applicants pay the respondent for the disbursements she incurred in connection with the application for leave to appeal, as these were costs properly outlaid in the proceedings. The court also set out a schedule for the parties to file written submissions regarding costs related to Woodward's application for costs. Ultimately, the court dismissed Woodward's application for costs, except for the reimbursement of disbursements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants pay the disbursements properly outlaid by the respondent in connection with the applicants’ application for leave to appeal.

2. Save as aforesaid, the respondent’s application for costs be dismissed.

3. With respect to costs related to the respondent’s application for costs the subject of Orders 2, 3 and 4 made on 8 February 2013, the parties have leave to file written submissions as follows:

(a) the applicants, by 4:00 pm on 22 February 2013;

(b) the respondent in response, by 4:00 pm on 26 February 2013;

(c) the applicants in reply, if necessary, by 4:00 pm on 28 February 2013.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with 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.