Buluma v Child Support Agency (No 2)

[2011] FCA 841

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Buluma v Child Support Agency (No 2) [2011] FCA 841

Citation:		Buluma v Child Support Agency (No 2) [2011] FCA 841
Parties:		WILBERFORCE BULUMA v CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
File number:		WAD 186 of 2010
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		28 July 2011
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers.
Date of last submissions:	17 June 2011
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr PJ Ward
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 186 of 2010

BETWEEN:	WILBERFORCE BULUMA Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JULY 2011
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Order 2 of the orders made on 12 May 2011, is varied so that it is ordered that the applicant is to pay the costs of the application to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 186 of 2010

BETWEEN:	WILBERFORCE BULUMA Applicant
AND:	CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	28 JULY 2011
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 12 May 2011, I made orders that the applicant’s application be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent’s costs (Buluma v Child Support Agency [2011] FCA 486). These orders have not yet been extracted.

2. Counsel representing the named respondent has submitted that the Court should vary the costs order so that the costs are to be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. The basis for this submission is that the named respondent filed a conditional appearance, on the grounds that the named respondent has no legal personality and the defence of the proceeding was, in fact, undertaken by the Commonwealth.  It was further contended that as the named respondent is unable to enforce the costs order, and because it was the Commonwealth which incurred the costs associated with the defence of the proceeding, the costs order should be made in favour of the Commonwealth.  In his further written submissions, Mr Buluma continued to dispute my finding in the primary judgment that the named respondent did not have legal personality, and was the inappropriate entity against which to proceed.

4. Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) gives the Court a discretion to make a costs order in favour of a non-party. In my view, for the reasons advanced by counsel for the named respondent, it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case, to order that the costs of the application be paid by the applicant to the Commonwealth of Australia.

5. I will, accordingly, vary the costs order made on 12 May 2011, by ordering that the applicant pay the costs of the application to the Commonwealth of Australia.

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

Associate:

Dated:        28 July 2011