Curtis-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2)

[2016] FCA 975

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Curtis-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Services (No 2) [2016] FCA 975

Appeal from:

Curtis-Smith and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 152

File number(s):

NSD 650 of 2015

Judge(s):

BUCHANAN  J

Date of judgment:

18 August 2016

Catchwords:

COSTS – application for lump sum costs after judgment – no reason to depart from assessment/taxation procedures provided by the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), ss 43(3)(a), 43(3)(d)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 40.02, 40.12

Cases cited:

Cameron v Secretary, Department of Human Services (No 2) [2015] FCA 1201

Curtis-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1115

Date of hearing:

17 August 2016

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

13

Counsel for the Appellant:

The appellant did not appear

Solicitor for the Respondent:

S Thompson of Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 650 of 2015

BETWEEN:

JAMES CURTIS-SMITH

Appellant

AND:

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN  J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interlocutory application filed on 7 July 2016 is dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs of the interlocutory application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

1. These are reasons for orders made yesterday.

2. On 22 October 2015 I dismissed an appeal by Mr Curtis-Smith which he brought under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) (Curtis-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1115). The AAT had ruled that Mr Curtis-Smith was not eligible for the payment of an age pension.

3. When I dismissed Mr Curtis-Smith’s appeal I dismissed it with costs.  That was the outcome which had been sought in the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent which were dated 23 July 2015.  No different order with respect to costs was sought until, on 7 July 2016, an interlocutory application was filed seeking the following orders:

   1.Costs be awarded in a lump sum of $6,000.00 instead of any taxed costs pursuant to r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for work up to 22 October 2015;

   2.The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of applying for lump sum costs pursuant to r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011;

   3.Costs also be awarded in a lump sum of $1,955.00 instead of any taxed costs pursuant to r 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for work since 22 October 2015.

4. It is undoubted that costs may be ordered in a specified or lump sum to give effect to an entitlement to costs (see Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43(3)(a) and (d) and Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.02(b)). An example of a proceeding…