Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Joseph

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1696

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Joseph [2025] FedCFamC2G 1696

File number:

PEG 458 of 2024

Judgment of:

JUDGE LADHAMS

Date of judgment:

15 October 2025

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW – costs – application for costs in a consumer protection matter – where the subject matter of the proceeding was substantially resolved between the parties after a hearing – costs ordered.   

Legislation:

National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

11

Date of hearing:

6 October 2025

Place:

Perth (via Webex)

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms C Simonidis

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Agility Law Group Pty Ltd

Respondent:

No appearance by or for the respondent

ORDERS

PEG 458 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

SECURE FUNDING PTY LTD ABN 25 081 982 872

Applicant

AND:

LUKE JOSEPH

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:	15 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the amount of $9,070.

2.The applicant’s application for interlocutory orders is otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE LADHAMS:

1. Secure Funding Pty Ltd entered into a contract with Mr Joseph, by which Secure Funding loaned a sum of money to Mr Joseph for the purchase of a motor vehicle. Pursuant to the contract between the parties, Secure Funding has a security interest in relation to the vehicle. Mr Joseph defaulted on his repayment obligations under the contract.

2. Secure Funding brings this application pursuant to the National Credit Code in Sch 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). The final relief sought by Secure Funding is an order that Mr Joseph pay to Secure Funding a sum of money to be calculated based on the contract between the parties. Secure Funding also seeks, as interlocutory relief, orders that would facilitate it to take possession of the vehicle. These include, but are not limited to, orders:

   (a)requiring Mr Joseph to inform Secure Funding’s solicitor of his current address and the current location of the vehicle;

   (b)requiring Mr Joseph to deliver or surrender the vehicle and its keys to Secure Funding or its agent;

   (c)permitting Secure Funding or its agent to enter and remain on residential premises to take possession of the vehicle; and

   (d)requiring Mr Joseph to pay Secure Funding’s costs of the proceeding.   

3. Mr Joseph has not participated in this proceeding before the Court, although there is evidence before the Court to suggest that he has, since July 2025, been communicating with Secure Funding’s lawyer.

4. The matter came before me for hearing on 6 October 2025 in relation to Secure Funding’s application for interlocutory relief. At the hearing, I asked some questions of Ms Simonidis, who appeared on behalf of Secured Funding. Ms Simonidis addressed some of my questions immediately and Secured Funding was granted leave to file further written submissions in relation to other questions that I raised, particularly in relation to some of the ancillary relief sought by Secure Funding. 

5. On 13 October 2025 Ms Simonidis sent an email to my associate which included the following information:

   We wish to advise the Court of recent developments in this matter which have occurred since the interlocutory hearing on 6 October 2025.

   We are instructed that the respondent delivered the secured vehicle (and its keys) the subject of the proceedings to the applicant’s authorised agent on Friday, 10 October 2025.

   The orders made 6 October 2025 provide leave for the applicant to file and serve any further written submissions by 4:30pm today. We understand that Her Honour foreshadowed at the hearing that she would reserve her Judgment pending the filing of any further written submissions being sent by email to chambers.

   Given the recent developments in this matter, the applicant does not intend to file any further written submissions to support the interlocutory relief sought. In this respect, the applicant now only seeks order 6 of the draft order relied upon at the hearing, being that the applicant’s costs be fixed in the sum of $9,070.  

6. Given these developments, it is no longer necessary to consider making most of the interlocutory orders sought. The only issue outstanding in relation to the interlocutory orders is the application for costs.

7. The quantum of costs sought by Secure Funding, namely $9,070, is calculated by reference to items identified in a scale in Schedule 2 to the relevant Court Rules. The relevant Court Rules are:

   (a)the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) in relation to work performed up to and including 31 August 2025; and

   (b)the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) in relation to work performed from 1 September 2025.

8. Secure Funding provided the following breakdown of the calculation:

   a.        Scale Item 2(a) Initiating application which includes interim orders: $3,938;

   b.Professional fees to obtain and serve Subpoena and uplift documents produced: $500;

   c.        Item 9(a) hearing fee – first hearing (mention) on 4 April 2025 – $321;

   d.        Item 9(a) hearing fee – directions hearing on 13 May 2025 – $321;

   e.Item 9(a) hearing fee – directions hearing (mention) on 28 August 2025 – $321;

   f.Item 9(a) hearing fee – directions hearing (mention) on 26 September 2025 – $321;

   g.        Item 9(b) daily hearing fee – half day hearing on 6 October 2025 – $1,178;

   h.        Item 11 Filing fee - $1,960;

   i.        Item 11 Filing fee for Subpoena - $185.00;

   j.        Item 11 Disbursements – conduct money for Subpoena - $25.

9. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed by Secure Funding do not exceed the amounts set out in the applicable costs schedule at the time the work was performed and are reasonable in the circumstances of this matter.

10. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to make the costs order sought by Secure Funding even though the interlocutory orders it sought will not now be made. There is nothing before me to suggest that the costs claimed by Secure Funding were not properly incurred. The need to bring this application, and incur the costs associated with it, resulted from the conduct of Mr Joseph.

11. In circumstances where the balance of the interlocutory relief sought by Secure Funding is no longer pressed, it is appropriate to make a further order that the application for interlocutory relief is otherwise dismissed.  

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.

Associate:

Dated:       15 October 2025