Sresbodan and Sresbodan & Ors

In the Family Court of Australia, Sresbodan appealed against a property settlement order made by the primary judge. The appellant was a discharged bankrupt, and the trustees and previous lawyers of the appellant were parties to the proceedings. The primary judge had made orders for the distribution of moneys to the first respondent, the trustees, and the third and fourth respondents. The appeal was based on the grounds that the primary judge did not allow the appellant to subpoena certain parties, but the appeal did not identify any appellable error. The appellant continued to challenge the bankruptcy, which had been finalised in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant claimed the primary judge did not allow him to subpoena various parties, but the transcript revealed that the appellant was afforded every opportunity to present his case. The appellant could not identify the evidence that the subpoenas would have produced.

The court found that the appeal did not identify any appellable error, and the appellant's continued challenge of the bankruptcy was irrelevant. The primary judge had given the appellant every opportunity to present his case, and the appellant had failed to identify the evidence that the subpoenas would have produced. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were to be paid by the appellant to each of the respondents. The court found that the respondents were entitled to costs, but not on an indemnity basis, as the appellant had been wholly unsuccessful and did not present an arguable case. The appellant's financial circumstances were constrained, but the court found that his own conduct had contributed to this position.

The court made an order for costs in favour of each of the respondents, of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed. The court found that the first respondent was entitled to costs, as the proceedings fell within the range of matters described in Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited. The second, third, and fourth respondents were also entitled to costs, as the appellant had been wholly unsuccessful and did not present an arguable case. The court found that the costs should not be on an indemnity basis, as the appellant had constrained financial circumstances and was on a pension, but his own conduct had contributed to this position. The court made an order for costs in favour of each of the respondents, of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed.