Coleman v Veale (No 2)

[2023] FCA 1219

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Costs
2. › Application relating to costs of successful application to set aside a bankruptcy notice
3. › whether respondent should bear costs of jurisdiction issue which he did not raise or agitate
1. Costs
2. › Apportionment
3. › whether respondent should bear costs in relation to ground on which applicant was unsuccessful
1. Costs
2. › Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011
3. › whether applicant should be deprived of costs for lack of engagement in discussions
1. Costs
2. › Exercise of discretion
3. › whether costs should be awarded on a lump sum or percentage basis

Quick Take

The Court ordered the respondent to pay 85% of the applicant's costs after the applicant succeeded in setting aside a bankruptcy notice. The Court held that costs should not be apportioned based on failure on individual grounds where the party achieved overall success, unless a genuinely discrete issue consumed significant time and resources. The 15% reduction reflected costs attributable to a jurisdiction issue that the respondent did not raise or agitate.