Lofthouse (Trustee) v Stirling (No 2) [2009] FCA 3

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lofthouse (Trustee) v Stirling (No 2) [2009] FCA 3

DAVID JAMES LOFTHOUSE (TRUSTEE) v MATTHEW JAMES STIRLING

VID 880 of 2008

HEEREY J

8 JANUARY 2009

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 880 of 2008

BETWEEN: DAVID JAMES LOFTHOUSE (TRUSTEE)

Applicant

AND: MATTHEW JAMES STIRLING

Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER: 8 JANUARY 2009

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be no order as to costs. 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 eSearch on the Court's website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 880 of 2008

BETWEEN: DAVID JAMES LOFTHOUSE (TRUSTEE)

Applicant

AND: MATTHEW JAMES STIRLING

Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 8 JANUARY 2009

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Although I have upheld the applicant's submissions that the respondent's Personal Insolvency Agreement was validly terminated (see Lofthouse (Trustee) v Stirling [2008] FCA 1936), I accept the respondent's submission that there should be no order as to costs. 2 The issue before the Court was the validity of the termination by the applicant, not the lawfulness or otherwise of any conduct of the respondent. The need for seeking the Court's directions was not brought about by anything the respondent did or failed to do. 3 The respondent was the appropriate contradictor, and I had the benefit of careful and comprehensive argument on his behalf. The opposition to the applicant's argument was legitimately arguable. 4 I note that solicitors for the applicant have indicated to my Associate that they did not wish to make any submissions as to costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.