Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rambaldi v Woodward (No 3) [2013] FCA 186 Citation: Rambaldi v Woodward (No 3) [2013] FCA 186
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: 6 March 2013
Catchwords: COSTS – application to recover costs incurred in successfully resisting costs application by self-represented respondent – self-represented respondent erroneously claimed she was a legal practitioner entitled to rely on the exception in Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] (1976) 136 CLR 47 - whether applicants entitled to recover costs on an indemnity basis
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Cases cited: Rambaldi v Woodward (No 2) [2013] FCA 104
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions: 26 February 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 9
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
BETWEEN: GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI AND ANDREW REGINALD YEO AS TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF JOHN EDWARD ATKINSON, A BANKRUPT
Applicants
AND: KIM CHERIE WOODWARD
Respondent
JUDGE: JESSUP J DATE OF ORDER: 6 March 2013 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
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