IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 151 of 1995
BETWEEN:
JOAN ANNIE ANDERSON
ApplicantAND:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
RespondentJUDGE:
SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:
29 MAY 1998
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs, of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 151 of 1995
BETWEEN:
JOAN ANNIE ANDERSON
ApplicantAND:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
JUDGE:
SPENDER J
DATE:
29 MAY 1998
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
When judgment in this application was given on 21 April 1998, the representative of Mrs Anderson sought the opportunity to make submissions on costs. I directed that any such submissions were to be made by 28 April 1998. My associate has since been informed that the applicant would not be making submissions as to costs. The respondent in a letter of 5 May 1998, within the time limited for the respondent’s submissions on costs, submitted that costs should follow the event and sought an order that the applicant pay the respondent its costs, including reserved costs. In this case there seems to me to be no reason to depart from the usual order as to costs. Whether the costs order is enforced, of course, is a matter for the respondent.
I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
I certify that this is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.
Associate
Dated: 29 May 1998
- AGLC
- Anderson, Joan Annie v The Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 584
- Case
- [1998] FCA 584
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, whether there were any errors in the application of relevant law, and whether the decision itself was lawful and rational. The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to assess these issues. In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of natural justice, the requirements for procedural fairness, and the applicable statutory and common law frameworks. The court also examined the specific facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the decision met the necessary legal standards.
After careful consideration, the court concluded that the decision in question was lawful and procedurally fair. The court found that the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice and did not contain any material errors of law. The decision was deemed rational and based on appropriate considerations. As a result, the applicant's challenge to the decision was dismissed. The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs, of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs, of and incidental to the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.