Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Rahman v Kent [2022] FCA 485 Appeal from: Kent and Orlizki v Rahman (No 2) [2019] FCCA 1357; Kent and Orlizki v Rahman (No 3) [2019] FCCA 1999
File number(s): NSD 1280 of 2019
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 3 May 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from Federal Circuit Court's ("FCC") dismissal of a review of a Registrar's orders – where Registrar awarded costs of self-represented solicitors including professional fees – where FCC's decision handed down prior to the High Court's decision in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; 269 CLR 333 – where notice of appeal filed out of time but prior to the High Court's decision in Bell Lawyers – whether an extension of time should be granted – where entitlement of self-represented solicitors to obtain their own professional costs not challenged in FCC – whether leave to raise point not argued below should be granted – where appeal is otherwise unanswerable COSTS – appeal from FCC costs orders – where appellant unsuccessful in FCC but ought to have succeeded in light of subsequent decision of the High Court in Bell Lawyers – appropriate costs order
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 32 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 104(2) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M, 37N Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.03, 36.05, 36.10 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 98(1)
Cases cited: Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow [2019] HCA 29; 269 CLR 333 Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; 179 CLR 403 Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; 162 CLR 1 Guss v Veenhuizen [No 2] [1976] HCA 57; 136 CLR 47 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 186; 3 FCR 344 Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; 195 CLR 516 Kent and Orlizki v Rahman (No 2) [2019] FCCA 1357 Kent and Orlizki v Rahman (No 3) [2019] FCCA 1999 London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872 Parker v R [2002] FCAFC 133 Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 150 Ratkovic v Hadzic [2019] NSWSC 1627 Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd [1950] HCA 35; 81 CLR 418
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