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
Details
AGLC
Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Blewett, N [1989] FCA 78
Case
[1989] FCA 78
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd v Blewett, N, heard in the Federal Court of Australia, involved a challenge by Alexandra Private Geriatric Hospital Pty Ltd (trading as Alexandra Private Nursing Home) against the Commonwealth Minister of State for Health and the Permanent Head of the Commonwealth Department of Health. The hospital sought judicial review of decisions concerning the setting of fees for nursing homes, specifically regarding the allowance for a profit element in these fees. The matter was initially heard by Woodward J in 1984 and subsequently reviewed by a Full Court in 1985, which found the respondents' decision unlawful.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents' decisions in setting nursing home fees were lawful, particularly focusing on the allowance for a profit element. The applicant argued that the respondents had not properly considered the necessary profit margin for the operation of nursing homes, while the respondents maintained that the decisions were within their statutory authority and adhered to the correct procedures.
Woodward J initially dismissed the applicant's application, finding the respondents' treatment of the applicant, though difficult, not unlawful. However, a Full Court later found the respondents' decision unlawful and ordered a review of the costs. Upon reconsidering the matter, Woodward J concluded that while the applicant had succeeded on a significant issue, the other issues were also substantial. He determined that it was just for the respondents to pay one third of the applicant's total party-and-party costs to avoid further complications and expenses associated with detailed cost assessments.
The court ordered that the respondents pay one third of the applicant's party-and-party costs in the matter, reflecting a balanced approach to the resolution of the costs issue while considering the significance of the applicant's successful arguments and the complexity of the proceedings.