Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Blewett, N

[1989] FCA 78

NOT €OR DISTRIBUTION lu ‘

4 ’ I : * - \ \

7t8 1 -

JUDGMENT No. ........ _. , - . S 1 1 4

J	~
. I ‘ i

1 ,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) . --- ’

1   -.. - 4.

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	NO. VG 46 of 1984
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN:

ALEXANDRA PRIVATE GERIATRIC HOSPITAL PTY. LTD.

(trading as “Alexandra Private Nursing Home?

Appllcant

- and -

NEAL BLEWETT (who is sued as the Commonwealth

Minister of State for Health)
and LAWRIE J. WILLETT (who is sued as the

Permanent Head of the Commonwealth Department

of Health)

Respondents

MINUTES OF ORDER

COURT: Woodward J

DATE :  15 March 1989

PLACE: Melbourne

Note:	Settlement and entry of orders ace dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The respondents pay to the applicant one third of its party-and-party costs in this matter, in

which judgment was given on 7 August 1984.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No. VG 46 of	1984
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)
BETWEEN:

ALEXANDRA PRIVATE GERIATRIC HOSPITAL PTY. LTD.

(tradina as "Alexandra Private Nursina Home") - Applicant

- and -
NEAL BLEWETT (who is sued as the Commonwealth
Minister of State for Health)
and LAWRIE J. WILLETT (who is sued as the

Permanent Head of the Commonwealth Department

of Health)

Respondents

WOODWARD J REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I heard this application for judicial review in

1984 and gave judgment on 7 August of that year; see 2 FCR

368.    In doing so I said (at 3 8 7 ) .

"I shall	not,	however,	attempt	o	deal
separately	with	each	way	in which	the

applicant's	case	is	put.	In their
"Applicant's	Statement	of	Issues",	counsel
have	purported	i entify	to	twenty-five

separate (though overlapping) ways in which

the delegate fell into error, and an average

of four different ways in which each error can

be challenged under the ADJR Act, making	a
potential total of over	100 separate issues.
I	shall deal only with the alleged errors

which in my view have some substance and, in

each of those cases, with the most obvious

ground or grounds of challenge under the Act."

I then proceeded to deal with the one minor and two

major issues which called for declsion. I resolved all three

of them against the applicant and dlsmrssed the applicatlon

wlth costs. On the principal and most time-consuming lssue -

the appropriate allowance for a profit element in fixlng

nursing home fees - I expressed sympathy for the applicant

but found that its treatment	by	the respondents, although
hard, was not unlawful.

In July 1985, a Full Court of this Court found that

the respondents' decision was unlawful and made appropriate
orders, see 7 FCR 341. There was no appeal from my flndings
on the other issues. The Full Court referred back to me for
further consideration the question of costs of the hearing

at first instance.

That question has only now been brought before me

by the applicant, and	I have found it necessary to reserve my
decision simply to refresh my memory	of the issues involved.

<

Having done so, I think it is in the interests of

both parties that I make as simple an order as possible in order to avoid the possibility of a wasteful taxing of two complex sets of costs.

I b Ielieve the i ssue on wh lich the app dicant fina dly

succeeded was more important, and took up rather more time in

hearrng, than all other issues combined. However those other

issues were substantial, and I would normally order that he

applicant pay the respondents that part of their costs which

related to those issues.

Doing the best I can with the arguments which have

been put to me, I think justice would be done if the

respondents were to pay the applicant one third of its total

party-and-party costs of the hearing before me and no order

were made for the respondents to have any costs.

I so order.

I certify that this and the
3 preceding pages are a true
and accurate copy of the Reasons
for Judgment herein of

The non Mr Justice Woodward

&dkh,&& Associate

Dated:	15 March 1989
Solicitor appearing for the Applicant:	MT. C. R. Lloyd
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Lloyd & Lloyd
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr. R. Dowllng
Solicitors for the Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	23 February 1989