Re Djakovic, Nikola Ex Parte Ostojic, Bosko

[1996] FCA 1010

C A T C H W O R D S

COSTS - No issue of principle

Re NIKOLA DJAKOVIC; Ex parte BOSKO OSTOJIC

No. SB 877 of 1995

Before:          North J
Place:            Melbourne
Date:             21 November 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DIVISION OF
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

No. SB 877 of 1995

Re:
NIKOLA DJAKOVIC

Applicant

Ex parte:
BOSKO OSTOJIC

Petitioning Creditor

MINUTE OF ORDERS

JUDGE:     North J
PLACE:     Melbourne
DATE:       21 November 1996

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the costs of the petitioning creditor to be taxed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the creditor in person, Mr Ivan Margitich, to be taxed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DIVISION OF
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

No. SB 877 of 1995

Re:
NIKOLA DJAKOVIC

Applicant

Ex parte:
BOSKO OSTOJIC

Petitioning Creditor

JUDGE:     North J
PLACE:     Melbourne
DATE:                 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This matter was heard on 7 August 1996, in Adelaide. Judgment was delivered on 16 September 1996 in Melbourne. At that time, I ordered that the application for annulment of the bankruptcy of Nikola Djakovic be dismissed. The determination of costs was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Subsequent to this, my associate contacted the applicant’s solicitor to inquire as to the need to argue the question of costs. At that time, the applicant’s solicitor indicated that argument on the question of costs
might not be necessary. However, no further communication was received from him.

On 24 September 1996, I caused my associate to send letters to all the parties in this matter advising that if the question of costs had not been resolved, the argument should proceed by way of written submissions and according to the following timetable:

1.  The applicant file by facsimile to chambers and serve written submissions on the question of costs by 4 pm 1 October 1996.
     2.  The petitioning creditor file by facsimile to chambers and serve written submissions on the question of costs by 4 pm 8 October 1996.
     3.  The creditor in person, Mr Ivan Margitich, file by facsimile to chambers and serve any written submissions on the question of costs by 4 pm 11 October 1996.
     4.  The Official Trustee file by facsimile to chambers and serve any written submissions on the question of costs by 4 pm 16 October 1996.
     5.  The applicant file by facsimile to chambers and serve any written submissions in reply by 4 pm 21 October 1996.

Submissions were filed by the solicitor for the petitioning creditor, and by the creditor in person, Mr Ivan Margitich. The Official Trustee did not seek an order for costs. No submissions as to costs were filed by the applicant. On 22 October 1996, my associate advised all the parties in this matter that I would proceed to make orders as to costs on the basis of the submissions filed.

Both the petitioning creditor and creditor in person, as successful respondents, seek their costs in this matter. In the absence of submissions from the applicant opposing this course of action, I will make orders that the applicant pay the costs of the petitioning creditor and the creditor in person, to be taxed.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Justice North.

Associate:
Dated: 19 November 1996

Solicitors for the applicant:  Proud & Co
Solicitor for the petitioning creditor:           J. Bennett
Creditor in person:  I. Margitich
For the Official Receiver on behalf of
the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy:             J. Peel

This matter was dealt with by way of written submissions filed by the parties.