Winn v Leigh

Case [2014] FCA 518

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Winn v Leigh [2014] FCA 518

Citation: Winn v Leigh [2014] FCA 518
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Winn v Leigh [2014] FCCA 573
Parties: JULENE WINN v DAVID LEIGH
File number: QUD 79 of 2014
Judge: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 15 May 2014
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – indemnity costs awarded against applicant by Federal Circuit Court – applicant alleges terms and nature of costs order pronounced in court differed from order issued to the parties – whether the primary judge erred in making the costs order – whether leave to appeal should be granted
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Sch 1
Cases cited: Adam P. Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Décor Corporation Proprietary Limited v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kyriackou v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] FCA 253
Merit Protection Commissioner v Nonnenmacher (1999) 86 FCR 112
Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125
Rickus v Motor Trades Association of Australia
Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 16
Date of hearing: 15 May 2014
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 20
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms A Wheatley
Solicitor for the Respondent: Rodgers Barnes & Green Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 79 of 2014
BETWEEN:

JULENE WINN
Applicant
AND:

DAVID LEIGH
Respondent

JUDGE:

RANGIAH J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 MAY 2014

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 79 of 2014
BETWEEN:

JULENE WINN
Applicant
AND:

DAVID LEIGH
Respondent

JUDGE:

RANGIAH J

DATE:

15 MAY 2014

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against two orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 14 February 2014.  The orders were: 

    (5)That the Application be adjourned to 9:30am on 24 March 2014 for final hearing (with an estimated hearing time of 1 day) in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia sitting at Brisbane.

    (6)That the Applicant pay the Respondent’s cost of and incidental to these proceedings on an indemnity basis fixed in the sum of $7982.00 by no later than 4.00pm on 14 March 2014.

  2. The applicant’s principal proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court was for orders under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) that the trustee prove and quantify any debt, for annulment of the bankruptcy and for an inquiry into the trustee’s conduct.

  3. The hearing of the application was set down for 14…

Continue reading Winn v Leigh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Winn v Leigh [2014] FCA 518
Case
[2014] FCA 518
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Winn v Leigh, the Federal Circuit Court dealt with an application for leave to appeal regarding an order for indemnity costs against the applicant, Winn, by the respondent, Leigh. The applicant sought to appeal a costs order made by the primary judge, alleging that the terms and nature of the costs order as pronounced in court differed from the order issued to the parties. The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the primary judge had erred in making the costs order and if leave to appeal should be granted.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether there was a discrepancy between the terms of the costs order as pronounced and those in the written order, and second, whether the primary judge had erred in making the costs order. The applicant argued that the written order did not reflect the terms as pronounced in court, leading to an erroneous order. The court needed to determine if this discrepancy was significant enough to warrant a departure from the usual rule against appealing against costs orders.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court found no merit in the applicant's contentions. The court held that the discrepancy between the pronounced and written orders did not amount to an error by the primary judge. Furthermore, the court concluded that the primary judge did not err in making the costs order. The applicant's arguments did not establish a sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

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.