Rambaldi v Woodward (No 3)

[2013] FCA 186

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rambaldi v Woodward (No 3) [2013] FCA 186

Citation:		Rambaldi v Woodward (No 3) [2013] FCA 186
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:		6 March 2013
Catchwords:		COSTS – application to recover costs incurred in successfully resisting costs application by self-represented respondent – self-represented respondent erroneously claimed she was a legal practitioner entitled to rely on the exception in Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47 - whether applicants entitled to recover costs on an indemnity basis
Legislation:		Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Cases cited:		Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions:	26 February 2013
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
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 Applicants
AND:	KIM CHERIE WOODWARD Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2013
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs, taxed (if not agreed) on an indemnity basis, incurred in relation to the respondent’s application for costs in relation to the applicants’ application for leave to appeal.

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 28 of 2013

BETWEEN:	GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT Applicants
AND:	KIM CHERIE WOODWARD Respondent

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE:	6 MARCH 2013
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 20 February 2013, I rejected the respondent’s application for costs (save as to disbursements) consequent upon her success in the applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of a single Judge of the court made on 13 December 2012: Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104. I then made orders for the parties to file written submissions on the question of the costs of the respondent’s application for costs.

2. It is important to understand how that question came to be resolved on the papers, rather than, as would normally be appropriate, orally upon the delivery of judgment.  When I made orders favourably to the respondent on 8 February 2013, she asked for her costs.  It was my view that, as a self-represented litigant, the respondent would not be entitled to costs, save for disbursements.  There did not seem to be any doubt about this general proposition, but the…