Violi v Livingstone

1. The Applicant pay the Respondents' costs of the interlocutory application.
2. Costs be assessed on a lump sum basis at $15,000.00
3. The Respondents be at liberty to recover those costs from the Applicant from the date of these orders. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

PERRAM J: 1 On 3 November 2023 I dismissed Mr Violi's interlocutory application to set aside an examination summons: Violi v Livingstone (Liquidator), in the matter of Suria Global (L) Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2023] FCA 1363. The liquidators seek their costs of the interlocutory application which they should have since they were successful. They also seek their costs thrown away by reason of Mr Violi's non-attendance before the Registrar on 19 October 2023. That is not a question for me. That is a question for the Registrar conducting the examination. The parties agree that the costs of the application should be assessed on a lump sum basis but disagree on the amount of the lump sum. The liquidators seek $30,081.00 but Mr Violi would prefer $6,811.00. The application was a reasonably complex one which took the afternoon to hear. I will fix the amount at $15,000.00. Given that there is no principal proceeding apart from the examinations it seems likely that the liquidators are entitled to have their costs paid without any further order. However, to the extent necessary, I will indicate that the liquidators should be entitled to recover their costs from Mr Violi at this stage. The orders will be that Mr Violi pay the liquidators' costs of his interlocutory application, that those costs be assessed on a lump sum basis at $15,000.00 and that the liquidators be at liberty to recover those costs from Mr Violi from the date of these orders. I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Perram.