CARRIGAN v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARRIGAN v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2013] FMCA 197

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Costs, litigant in person, costs payable to litigant in person where appeal allowed by consent.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975, s.44
Federal Magistrates Act1999, ss.79(2), 79(3)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r.1.04

Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403
Casley v Casley (Costs) [2010] FamCAFC 189
Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 66
Shepard v Blueberry Farms [2001] FMCA 2

Applicant: JANE CARRIGAN

First Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent: SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

File Number: BRG 666 of 2012

Judgment of: Jarrett FM

Hearing date: 30 January 2013

Date of Last Submission: 21 February 2013

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 22 March 2013

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Black

Solicitors for the Respondents: DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

1. The respondent pay the applicant’s disbursements associated with the appeal fixed in the sum of $4,108.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 666 of 2012

JANE CARRIGAN

Applicant

And

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. By order of Collier J made on 17 July, 2012 the applicant’s appeal filed pursuant to s.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 against a decision of the respondent was transferred to this Court.

2. After two appearances in this Court and the making of directions on each occasion, the applicant and the respondent were able to settle the proceedings.  On 30 January, 2013 I ordered, with the consent of each party, that the applicant’s appeal be allowed, that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 2 May, 2012 be set aside and that the matter be remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to be heard and decided again.

3. However, the costs and disbursements incurred by the applicant in her application remain in dispute between the parties.  The applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay her costs and disbursements of the application.  The respondent does not oppose an order that the respondent pay some of the applicant’s disbursements in the appeal, but there is a dispute as to the order for costs and some of the disbursements sought by the applicant.

4. Both parties agree that s.79(2) of the Federal Magistrates Act1999 provides the source of the Court’s jurisdiction to award costs in proceedings before it. The award of costs is in the discretion of the Court: s.79(3) of the Act.

5. The applicant seeks an order for her “legal costs” and suggests that an order could be framed in the following way:

   “The respondent forward payment of “costs” to the applicant that reflect the full fees charged to the respondent by its representing advocates (one barrister, one partner, one special counsel, two x graduate law students) between 30 May 2012 and 30 January 2013.”

6. The difficulty with the applicant’s argument is that she at all times has represented…