Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104 Citation: Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104
Appeal from: Application for Leave to Appeal: [2012] FCA 1087
Parties: GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT v KIM CHERIE WOODWARD
File number: VID 28 of 2013
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 20 February 2013
Catchwords: COSTS – application by self-represented respondent for costs incurred in successfully resisting application for leave to appeal by applicants – respondent admitted as a lawyer under Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) but not entitled to represent private litigant in this court under Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether respondent entitled to recover costs on basis of exception in Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47
Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 55B, 55C
Cases cited: Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47 Kenna v Conolly (1943) 17 ALJ 32 Rambaldi v Woodward [2013] FCA 89 Worchild v Petersen [2008] QCA 26
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Cawthorn SC with Mr A Bailey
Solicitor for the Applicant: B2B Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 28 of 2013
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