FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 361
Appeal from: CWW17 v Minister for Immigration (No. 2) [2018] FCCA 2177 File number: NSD 1520 of 2018 Judge: ALLSOP CJ Date of judgment: 14 March 2019 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application of slip rule Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 39.05 Cases cited: CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 5 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: L Leerdam of DLA Piper ORDERS
NSD 1520 of 2018
BETWEEN: CWW17
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
ALLSOP CJ
DATE OF ORDER:
14 MARCH 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to r 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the “slip rule”), the words “with costs” be inserted into Order 2 of the orders of the Court made on 28 February 2019 following the word “dismissed”.
2.A corresponding change be made to the statement of those orders in CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264 at [24].
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ALLSOP CJ:
This matter was a purported appeal from orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 1 August 2018, dismissing an application to set aside orders made by the same judge on 26 April 2018.
The matter was set down for hearing on 28 February 2019. On that day, I dismissed the purported appeal by way of extempore judgment. The revised judgment that was subsequently published (CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264) included the following orders:
1.The notice of appeal filed be treated as an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal; and
2.Said application be dismissed pursuant to r 35.33 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for want of appearance by the applicant.
At the hearing, the respondent made an application for a lump sum order of costs, which I declined: see CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264 at [25]. In lieu thereof, I intended to make a general order for costs. However, the orders that were formally made, and included in the judgment, omitted that costs order. That was done in error.
Pursuant to r 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the “slip rule”), the Court may vary a judgment or order after it has been entered in circumstances where there is an error arising therein from an accidental slip or omission. The non-inclusion of the general costs order was such an accidental omission.
Accordingly, I order that, pursuant to the slip rule, the words “with costs” be inserted into Order 2 of the orders of the Court made on 28 February 2019 following the word “dismissed”, and that a corresponding change be made to the statement of those orders in CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264 at [24].
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop. Associate:
Dated: 14 March 2019
- AGLC
- CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 361
- Case
- [2019] FCA 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the slip rule, rule 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, allowed for the retrospective alteration of the court’s orders to include costs. The slip rule generally permits the court to correct errors in its orders, and the applicant argued that the omission of costs from the initial order was an error requiring rectification. The Minister for Home Affairs opposed this application, asserting that such retrospective amendments were not permissible under the rules.
The court examined the scope and purpose of the slip rule, finding that it indeed empowered the court to correct clerical or minor errors in its orders, even if those errors resulted in omitting costs. The court concluded that the omission of costs was a clerical error that warranted correction under the slip rule. Consequently, the court granted the application, ordering that the words “with costs” be inserted into the original orders, thereby ensuring the correct application of the law and procedural rules.
The final orders were made pursuant to rule 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011, inserting the specified words into the previous order and amending the corresponding statement of those orders. This adjustment aimed to rectify the procedural oversight and ensure the proper execution of the court’s intended outcome.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to r 39.05(h) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the “slip rule”), the words “with costs” be inserted into Order 2 of the orders of the Court made on 28 February 2019 following the word “dismissed”.
2. A corresponding change be made to the statement of those orders in CWW17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 264 at [24].
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.