FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 75 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: COMCARE
Applicant
AND: PAUL MOOI
Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDERS
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 2 July 1996 WHERE MADE: Brisbane
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The respondent be granted a costs certificate under s 6 the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QG 75 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: COMCARE
Applicant
AND: PAUL MOOI
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 26 June last I published my reasons for allowing Comcare’s appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in favour of the respondent. I ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
At the hearing, the respondent applied for a costs certificate under s 6 the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) in the event that I were to allow the appeal.
The appeal having succeeded on a question of law, the discretion to grant the respondent a costs certificate in respect of the appeal is enlivened.
The error of law that led to the success of the appeal before me resulted from the Tribunal accepting the submission put to it on behalf of the respondent as to the proper construction of s 14(1) the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). But that consideration is not sufficient of itself to justify refusal of a costs certificate, for the reasons given in Lauchlan v Hartley [1980] Qd R 149, a decision on Queensland legislation corresponding to the Commonwealth Act.
I do not think the point successfully taken in the proceedings before the Tribunal which involved the error of law on which the appeal succeeded was an inarguable one, particularly given the continuous liberalisation of the requirements to be satisfied by Commonwealth employees to be entitled to workers’ compensation reflected in the legislative history of the 1988 Act.
I will therefore grant a certificate covering costs of the kind referred to in s 6(3)(a) and (b).
I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Drummond.
Associate:
Date: 2 July 1996
Details
AGLC
Comcare v Mooi, Paul [1996] FCA 580
Case
[1996] FCA 580
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Comcare v Mooi, Paul involved Comcare, the applicant, and Paul Mooi, the respondent. The dispute centred around an appeal by Comcare against a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in favour of Paul Mooi. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the Queensland District Registry's General Division. The core issue in this case was whether the Federal Court should grant Comcare's appeal against the AAT's decision and, if so, whether it should issue a costs certificate to the respondent in the event the appeal succeeded.
The legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal's interpretation of section 14(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) was erroneous, and if so, whether this warranted the grant of a costs certificate to the respondent. The court had to consider whether the point of law successfully argued by the respondent before the Tribunal was indisputable, especially considering the legislative history of the 1988 Act. The court also had to determine whether the error of law by the Tribunal was significant enough to justify the refusal of a costs certificate to the respondent.
In its judgment, the court allowed Comcare's appeal and ordered that Mooi pay Comcare's costs of the appeal. The court acknowledged that the appeal succeeded on a question of law and thus the discretion to grant Mooi a costs certificate was triggered. The court did not find the point successfully argued by Mooi before the Tribunal to be indisputable, particularly considering the legislative history of the 1988 Act. Consequently, the court granted a costs certificate to Mooi, covering costs as specified in sections 6(3)(a) and (b) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).