Copeland (liquidator) v Odeesh, in the matter of FBF Transport Pty Ltd

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)

1. In September 2025, the first plaintiff, Mr Brendan Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of FBF Transport Pty Ltd (the Liquidator), commenced this proceeding, the object of which was to compel the defendant, Mr Alfredo Bashar Odeesh, who was a director of FBF, to deliver up six motor vehicles that the Liquidator believed to be owned by FBF. After much toing and froing (summarised in earlier judgments: Copeland (liquidator) v Odeesh, in the matter of FBF Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 1136; Copeland (liquidator) v Odeesh, in the matter of FBF Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2024] FCA 1400) Mr Odeesh returned the vehicles. Having achieved his objective, the Liquidator sought to discontinue the proceedings. He also sought indemnity costs from Mr Odeesh.
2. On 11 April 2025, I ordered Mr Odeesh to pay the Liquidator's costs assessed on an indemnity basis: Copeland (liquidator) v Odeesh, in the matter of FBF Transport Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2025] FCA 352. I also ordered that the amount of costs payable by Mr Odeesh be referred to a Registrar of the Court, acting as a referee, for determination on a lump-sum basis in accordance with the lump-sum procedure in the Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS). A Registrar, acting as a referee, in due course conducted an inquiry into the quantification of the costs incurred by the Liquidator. Mr Odeesh, who was represented during part of that inquiry, was given an opportunity to file evidence and adduce submissions.
3. On 22 October 2025, the Registrar furnished a report which, in summary, quantified the Liquidator's costs, assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to the lump-sum procedure, as being $117,824.30. The matter was subsequently relisted before me, pursuant to the orders made on 11 April 2025, to determine whether the Registrar's report should be adopted, rejected or varied: see r 28.67 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
4. The defendant, Mr Odeesh, who appeared unrepresented, submitted that the report should not be adopted. The basis of that submission was, in short summary, that he is impecunious and lives on social security payments and is therefore in no position to pay the costs as quantified in the Registrar's report. Mr Odeesh effectively conceded, however, that he had no cause or basis to query, question or criticise the referee's quantification of the costs order.
5. It is generally not appropriate for a referee's findings of fact to be re-agitated when considering whether the referee's report should be adopted: see Chocolate Factory Apartments v Westpoint Finance [2005] NSWSC 784 at [7]. In any event, Mr Odeesh was unable to identify any error of fact in the Registrar's report. Nor did he suggest that the Registrar erred in law in determining the quantum of the Liquidator's costs. No error of fact or law is apparent from the content of the report. It is, in those circumstances, appropriate to adopt the Registrar's report in full. It is also appropriate to make a costs order consistent with the adoption of that report. Accordingly, the orders I will make are as follows:
   1. The referee's report dated 22 October 2025, which pursuant to order 3 of the orders made on 11 April 2025 determined the amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, be adopted.
   2. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on a lump sum assessed basis of $117,824.30.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Wigney.