Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2)

Case [2012] FCA 647

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2) [2012] FCA 647

Citation: Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2) [2012] FCA 647
Parties:

PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN v GESS MICHELE RAMBALDI, ANDREW REGINALD YEO (AS JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN, A BANKRUPT), INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY and OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY

ANDREW REGINALD YEO, GESS MICHELE RAMBALDI (AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTIES OF PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN, A BANKRUPT) v PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN, INSEPCTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY AND OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY  
File number(s): VID 744 of 2011
VID 859 of 2011
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 21 June 2012
Catchwords: COSTS – s 43 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether unsuccessful party should pay the costs of submissions made by public official in furtherance of official responsibilities.
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) ss 11(2)(a), 306
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Weeden v Rambaldi [2012] FCA 552
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 13
VID 744 of 2011
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr GT Bigmore QC with Ms CG Rome-Sievers
Solicitor for the Applicant: Tisher Liner & Co
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr J Peters SC with Mr B Gibson
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: SBA Law
Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Ms C Gobbo
Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor
VID 859 of 2011
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Peters SC with Mr B Gibson
Solicitors for the Applicants: SBA Law
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr GT Bigmore QC with Ms CG Rome-Sievers
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Tisher Liner & Co
Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: Ms C Gobbo
Solicitor for the Second and Third Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 744 of 2011
BETWEEN:

PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN
Applicant
AND:

GESS MICHELE RAMBALDI
First Respondent

ANDREW REGINALD YEO (AS JOINT TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN, A BANKRUPT)
Second Respondent

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Third Respondent

OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JUNE 2012

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the third and fourth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 859 of 2011
BETWEEN:

ANDREW REGINALD YEO
First Applicant

GESS MICHELE RAMBALDI (AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTIES OF PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN, A BANKRUPT)
Second Applicant
AND:

PHILIP CHARLES WEEDEN
First Respondent

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Second Respondent

OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 JUNE 2012

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The first respondent pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding,…

Continue reading Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2) [2012] FCA 647
Case
[2012] FCA 647
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Weeden v Rambaldi (No 2), the applicants, Weeden and another, sought relief from the Federal Court of Australia against the respondents, which included a trustee in bankruptcy and others. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of section 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) and the associated costs incurred in the proceedings, particularly those related to submissions made by a public official in the course of their duties.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the unsuccessful party in the litigation should bear the costs of submissions made by a public official acting within the scope of their official responsibilities. The specific issue was whether such costs should be borne by the unsuccessful party under section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

The court found that the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the submissions made by the public official in the course of their official duties. The court reasoned that such costs were directly related to the litigation and should be allocated to the party who did not prevail. Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the third and fourth respondents, while the first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents, excluding those related to the specific submissions about section 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the third and fourth respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

1. The first respondent pay the second respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, other than those costs incurred in the making of submissions as to the effect and operation of s 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth).

2. The first respondent pay the third respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.