FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Toben v Jones (No 3) [2011] FCA 767
Citation: Toben v Jones (No 3) [2011] FCA 767 Parties: GERALD FREDRICK TOBEN V JEREMY JONES File numbers: SAD 69 of 2009
SAD 73 of 2009Judges: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 8 July 2011 Catchwords: COSTS — Where applicant ordered to pay costs of respondent — where respondent filed bill of costs — where Registrar made estimate in absence of parties of approximate total on taxation pursuant to O 62 r 46 of the Federal Court Rules — where applicant did not file notice of objection to estimate and certificate of taxation was issued — where order entered pursuant to O 62 r 45(3) that applicant pay respondent’s costs in amount contained in certificate of taxation — where applicant sought to have order set aside — where applicant then paid amount of costs to respondent
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY — where bankruptcy notice founded on costs order issued — where time for compliance with bankruptcy notice expired — application to extend time for compliance with bankruptcy notice
HELD: The applications to have the order as to costs set aside and to have the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice extended were dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.
Legislation: Federal Court Rules O 62 r 46(1)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 41(6A) and 33(1)(c)Cases cited: James v Abrahams (1981) 34 ALR 657, cited
Toben v Jones [2009] FCAFC 104, citedDates of hearing: 30 May, 2, 15, 20 June, 4 July 2011 Place: Adelaide via video link with Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 20 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person (30 May, 2, 20 June, 4 July 2011)
Dr J Walsh appeared (15 June 2011)Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Lewis appeared (30 May, 20 June, 4 July, 2011)
Mr J Wertheim appeared (2, 15 June 2011)Solicitor for the Respondent: Slater & Gordon
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 69 of 2009
BETWEEN: GERALD FREDRICK TOBEN
ApplicantAND: JEREMY JONES
Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JULY 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 April 2011 be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent his costs of and incidental to the said notice of motion.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
SAD 73 of 2009
BETWEEN: GERALD FREDRICK TOBEN
ApplicantAND: JEREMY JONES
Respondent
JUDGE:
BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 JULY 2011
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.The applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 April 2011 be dismissed.
4.The applicant pay the respondent his costs of and incidental to the said notice of motion.
Continue reading Toben v Jones (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Toben v Jones (No 3) [2011] FCA 767
- Case
- [2011] FCA 767
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Toben had grounds to set aside the costs order and whether the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice could be extended. The court found that Toben had not identified any valid grounds for setting aside the costs order, as the notice of the estimate was appropriately served, and there was no proper challenge to the Full Court’s order for costs. Additionally, Toben's failure to object to the estimate and the subsequent payment of the costs to the respondent meant that the application was without merit. Regarding the bankruptcy notice, the court determined that Toben's failure to act within the specified period precluded him from extending the time for compliance.
The court dismissed Toben's notice of motion and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion. The dismissal of the notice of motion and the order for Toben to pay costs were based on the lack of valid grounds for setting aside the costs order and the failure to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 April 2011 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent his costs of and incidental to the said notice of motion.
Note:
3. The applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 April 2011 be dismissed.
4. The applicant pay the respondent his costs of and incidental to the said notice of motion.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.