Toben v Jones (No 3)

Case [2011] FCA 767


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 2009
Judges: 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, cited
Dates 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
Applicant

AND:

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
Applicant

AND:

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

Details
AGLC
Toben v Jones (No 3) [2011] FCA 767
Case
[2011] FCA 767
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Toben v Jones (No 3) dealt with a dispute regarding a costs order and its enforcement through bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant, Toben, sought to set aside a costs order made against him and to extend the time for compliance with a bankruptcy notice. The costs order was entered after Toben failed to object to a taxing officer's estimate of the respondent's costs, which amounted to $56,435.72. Following this order, the respondent issued a bankruptcy notice against Toben for the unpaid costs. Toben subsequently filed a notice of motion to challenge the costs order and to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice, but he had already paid the costs to the respondent before the hearing.

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

On 23 December 2010 the Deputy District Registrar of the South Australia District Registry of this Court drew up, signed, sealed and entered an order that the applicant pay the respondent the sum of $56,435.72. It is that order which appears to be the subject of the applicant’s notice of motion. I say appears because a good deal of the applicant’s argument on the notice of motion was directed towards obtaining a different order.THE BACKGROUND TO THE ORDER The applicant filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal in relation to orders made by a judge of this Court in contempt proceedings. On 13 August 2009 the Full Court of this Court made orders dismissing the applicant’s appeal and ordering the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs (Toben v Jones [2009] FCAFC 104). On 25 June 2010 the respondent filed a bill of costs claiming costs and disbursements of $104,411.97 and on 30 June 2010 a decision was made to apply the provisions of O 62 r 46(1) of the Federal Court Rules and decline to give an appointment to tax the bill. A direction was made that an assessment be made in accordance with O 62 r 46(3) and a direction was made that an estimate be made by a taxing officer on 30 June 2010. That was done by a taxing officer whose estimate in relation to the bill of costs was $56,435.72. The Deputy District Registrar advised the parties of the estimate by letter dated 4 August 2010. As far as the applicant was concerned the letter was sent to his solicitor who had given his address as the address for service for the applicant in both the notice of appeal and the application for leave to appeal. Neither party filed a notice of objection to the estimate under O 62 r 46(3)(c) and on 15 September 2010 a certificate of taxation was issued in the following terms:I hereby certify that, pursuant to Order 62 rule 46(3)(ca) of the Federal Court Rules, the respondent’s costs, as between party and party, are deemed to be $56,435.72. On 10 December 2010 the respondent filed an affidavit sworn by his solicitor on 18 November 2010 deposing to service of the certificate of taxation on the applicant by sending it under cover of a letter to the applicant at a residential address in South Australia. The Deputy District Registrar considered that the requirements of O 62 r 45(3) had been met and that in turn led to the order which is referred to in the applicant’s notice of motion.PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 (CTH) AGAINST THE APPLICANT It seems that in October 2010 a bankruptcy notice was issued against the applicant at the request of the respondent. That bankruptcy notice was subsequently set aside without any contest and it is not necessary to refer to it further. On 12 January 2011 a second bankruptcy notice against the applicant was issued at the request of the respondent. The debt forming the basis of that notice was the judgment for $56,435.72 entered on 23 December 2010. The second bankruptcy notice was served on the applicant on 22 March 2011. The applicant took no action in relation to the notice until, on 15 April 2011, he issued the notice of motion now before me. In other words, he did not take any action within the 21 day period specified in the bankruptcy notice.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In so far as it is an attack on the order entered on 23 December 2010, no grounds for disturbing the order (assuming for present purposes that there is a power to set aside an order entered pursuant to O 62 r 45(3)) have been identified. Notice of the estimate was given appropriately having regard to the address for service on the files of the Court. The applicant asserted that he sent to the Court a copy of his letter to the respondent’s solicitor advising that his solicitor was no longer acting for him. He did not do that. He did send a letter to the Court dated 28 August 2009 but that was a different letter and in no way did it constitute notice of a change in the applicant’s address for service. Service of the certificate of taxation was sufficient bearing in mind that the applicant had advised the respondent that the solicitor was no longer acting for him. Even if there was a difficulty any challenge to the order must fail. There can be no challenge to the Full Court’s order for costs before this Court and nothing was said either by the applicant or Dr Walsh, when he appeared on the applicant’s behalf, which even remotely suggested a proper basis for challenging the estimate. That the notice of motion fails on the merits is a conclusion I reach irrespective of the fact that payment has now been made. CONCLUSION The applicant’s notice of motion dated 15 April 2011 is dismissed and the applicant must pay the respondent his costs of and incidental to the notice of motion.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.