IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. 352 of 1994
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
B E T W E E N:
COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Applicant
- and -
FRANCIS XAVIER AMOREBIETA
Defendant
JUDGE: Heerey J
DATE: 9 February 1995
PLACE: Melbourne
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I think this application falls to be decided in accordance with the general practice where judgments for the payment of money are made against a defendant who then appeals. It is quite common for a stay to be made pending appeal in circumstances where there might be ground for thinking that if the money is paid out, and the appeal is successful, the money might be difficult or impossible to recover. Here there has been no proffering of security and, more importantly, no suggestion that the respondent has actually paid the costs and is out of pocket and is awaiting reimbursement. If there was I might well have taken a different course. But the reality with this sort of litigation is that the costs are usually paid when everything is wound up. So I think it is appropriate to order a stay.
I will order that:
The order of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 22 September 1994 that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding and the tribunal incurred by the respondent in accordance with the tribunal's practice direction dated 20 June 1993 be stayed pending the determination of this matter by the court;
The costs of the present application be costs in the appeal.
I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Heerey.
Dated:
Associate
Appearances
Counsel for the applicant: Mr R Frazzetto
Solicitor for the applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the respondent: Mr M Carey
Solicitor for the respondent: Slater & Gordon
Date of hearing: 9 February 1995
- AGLC
- Comcare Australia v Amorebieta, F.X [1995] FCA 47
- Case
- [1995] FCA 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of the AAT's order for Amorebieta to pay costs, pending the determination of Comcare Australia's appeal. Justice Heerey considered the standard practice in such cases, where a stay is often ordered if there is a possibility that the money might be difficult or impossible to recover if the appeal is successful. This consideration was particularly pertinent given that Amorebieta had not provided any security or indicated that he had already paid the costs and was awaiting reimbursement. The court emphasised that the usual practice in this type of litigation was for costs to be paid only after all proceedings had concluded.
In delivering his judgment, Justice Heerey noted that the standard practice in cases involving judgments for the payment of money against a defendant who then appeals was to stay the payment of those costs pending the appeal. This approach helps to protect the appellant from potential financial loss if the appeal is successful. Given that Amorebieta had not offered any security and had not paid the costs himself, Justice Heerey concluded that it was appropriate to order a stay of the AAT's cost order. The judge also directed that the costs of the current application would be considered costs in the appeal. Consequently, the court ordered a stay of the AAT's cost order and set the costs of the present application as costs in the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.