Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fewin Pty Ltd v Prentice (No 2) [2017] FCA 102 File number: NSD 25 of 2016
Judge: MARKOVIC J
Date of judgment: 16 February 2017
Catchwords: COSTS – where the applicants enjoyed substantial success – whether the court should depart from the rule that costs follow the event – respondent ordered to pay a proportion of the applicants' costs BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – trustee's right to indemnity for litigation costs – whether trustee should be disentitled from relying on indemnity
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 32 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Adsett v Berlouis (1992) 37 FCR 201 Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Global Gaming Supplies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 277 Maxwell-Smith v Donnelly (No 2) [2011] FCA 259 New South Wales Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd v Kuzmanovski (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 152 Pantzer v Wenkart (2006) 153 FCR 466 Principal Strategic Options Pty Ltd, in the matter of Coshott v Coshott [2001] FCA 664 Queensland North Australia Pty Ltd v Takeovers Panel (No 2) (2015) 236 FCR 370 Re Beddoe; Downes v Cottam [1893] 1 Ch 547
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions: 2 December 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
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