Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Mahommed v Cox as Administrator of the Deceased Estate of Dixon (No 2) [2023] FCAFC 170 Appeal from: Mahommed v Cox as Administrator of the Deceased Estate of Dixon [2022] FCA 886
File number(s): NSD 679 of 2022
Judgment of: MARKOVIC, GOODMAN AND MCELWAINE JJ
Date of judgment: 20 October 2023
Catchwords: COSTS – application for indemnity costs against appellant's solicitor – whether appropriate to order that solicitor personally bears costs under s 43(3)(f) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Harvey v Dioceses of Sale Catholic Education Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 1420 Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674; 102 FCR 155 Mitry Lawyers v Barnden [2014] FCA 918 White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) (1998) 156 ALR 169
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 8
Date of last submissions: 21 July 2023 (Respondent) 28 July 2023 (Appellant)
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Solicitor for the Appellant: Mr L Smits of Murray Laws Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Allen
Solicitor for the Respondent: Shaba & Thomas Lawyers
ORDERS NSD 679 of 2022 BETWEEN: PETER SHAH MAHOMMED Appellant
AND: KAREN ANN COX AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DECEASED ESTATE OF DAVID WILLIAM DIXON Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate