FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 1
Citation: | Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith (No 2) [2011] FCAFC 1 |
Related to: | Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith [2010] FCAFC 154 |
Parties: | |
File number: | NSD 630 of 2010 |
Judges: | BENNETT, RARES AND MCKERRACHER JJ |
Date of judgment: | |
Date of hearing: | Heard on the papers |
Date of applicant’s/ appellant’s submission: | 4 January 2011 |
Place: | Sydney |
Division: | GENERAL DIVISION |
Category: | No Catchwords |
Number of paragraphs: | 3 |
Solicitor for the applicant/ appellant: | Church & Grace |
Respondent: | Self represented |
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Appellant | |
AND: | Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Order 3 made on 16 December 2010 be amended to read:
“3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal including, there being no opposition by the applicant, their costs of travelling to and attending at the hearing in Sydney.”
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 Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 630 of 2010 |
BETWEEN: | MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY Appellant
|
AND: | INGE AND EUGENE MAXWELL-SMITH Respondent
|
JUDGES: | BENNETT, RARES AND MCKERRACHER JJ |
DATE: | 3 FEBRUARY 2011 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
1 The Court made orders and delivered its reasons on 16 December 2010: Donnelly v Maxwell-Smith [2010] FCAFC 154. Order 3 was in the following terms:
“3. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal including, by consent, their costs of travelling to and attending at the hearing in Sydney.”
2 On 4 January 2011 the solicitors for Mr Donnelly wrote to the Registrar drawing attention to an error in that order attributing his consent to the payment of Mr and Mrs Maxwell-Smith’s costs of travelling to and attending the hearing in Sydney. They pointed out that during the hearing senior counsel had said, as recorded in [38] of our reasons, that Mr Donnelly did not oppose the making of such an order.
3 The orders have not yet been entered. It is appropriate to order that Order 3 be amended to reflect the intention of the Court pursuant to O 35 r 7(2)(e) and (3) of the Federal Court Rules so that it reads:
“The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal and application for leave to appeal including, there being no opposition by the applicant, their costs of travelling to and attending at the hearing in Sydney.”
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Bennett, Rares and McKerracher. |
Associate:
