Director of Family Services in the capacity of Christine Lesley Healy v Campione, Michael

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

C A T C H W O R D S

APPEAL - costs - appeal from Supreme Court orders as to costs - parents of children appeal successfully to Supreme Court against Children’s Court orders in care proceedings brought by Director of Family Services - Supreme Court orders costs against Director in Supreme Court and in Children’s Court on Supreme Court scale - whether costs should follow event - effect of statutory provisions as to costs in Children’s Court - whether court should follow policy of ordinarily ordering costs against Director where parents have acted responsibly - Supreme Court orders justified on grounds other than proposed policy.

COSTS - direction by Supreme Court that costs in Children’s Court be paid on Supreme Court scale - whether power to so direct - effect of direction - lack of clarity in legislation and regulations.

Children’s Services Act 1986 (ACT), s.20, para.83(1)(e), para.144(1)(c), sub-s.147(1)
Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Act 1982 (ACT), s-ss. 22(1), (2) and (9), s.246, 393
Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Solicitors Costs) Regulations, reg. 2
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s.23
Common Law Procedure Act 1852 (UK), 15 & 16 Vic, c76
Common Law Procedure Act 1899
Federal Court Act 1976, s.43
Seat of Government Supreme Court Ordinance 1933 (ACT)

Duralla Pty Ltd v. Plant (1984) 2 FCR 342 - followed
Petreski v. Cargill (1987) 18 FCR 68 - followed
Brambles Holdings Ltd v. Trade Practices Commission (1979) 40 FLR 364 - followed
Latoudis v. Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 - considered, followed
R v. Goia (1988) 19 FCR 212 - considered
McEwen v. Siely (1972) 21 FLR 131 - followed
Gojkovic v. Gojkovic (No. 2) [1992] 1 All ER 267 - considered
Hamdorf v. Riddle [1971] SASR 398 - followed
Reid Hewitt & Co. v. Jospeh [1918] AC 717 at 723 - considered
20 Corpus Juris Secundum para.4
Friedlander, Costs and the Public Interest Litigant 40 (1995) McGill LJ 55

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES in the capacity of Christine Lesley Healy v. MICHAEL CAMPIONE and MELISSA CAMPIONE

ACT G28 of 1997

Coram: MILES, R.D. NICHOLSON & FINN JJ
Place: Canberra
Date: 15 April 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
)

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ACT G 28 of 1997
)

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:
DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES in the capacity of Christine Lesley Healy
Appellant

AND:
MICHAEL CAMPIONE and MELISSA CAMPIONE
Respondents

JUDGE(s): MILES, R.D. NICHOLSON & FINN JJ

PLACE: CANBERRA

DATED: 15 April 1998

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal to this Court be dismissed.
The appellant~~Director~~ pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to this Court.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ACT G 28 of…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Director of Family Services in the capacity of Christine Lesley Healy v Campione, Michael, the appellant, Christine Lesley Healy, acting as the Director of Family Services, sought to appeal against the orders of the Supreme Court, which had previously overturned the Children’s Court’s decisions regarding the care of the children involved. The Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the respondents, Michael Campione and his wife, awarding them costs on the Supreme Court scale both in the Supreme Court and the Children’s Court. The appeal contested these costs orders, focusing on whether the costs should indeed follow the event and the implications of statutory provisions concerning costs within the Children’s Court.

The legal issues before the court were primarily whether the Supreme Court had the authority to order costs in the Children’s Court to be paid on the Supreme Court scale and the effect of such a direction. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the Supreme Court’s decision to order costs against the Director of Family Services was justified based on the statutory framework and policy considerations, especially in cases where the parents had acted responsibly. The court also examined the lack of clarity in the relevant legislation and regulations regarding the power to direct costs in the Children’s Court.

The court found that the Supreme Court’s orders were justified based on factors beyond the proposed policy of ordinarily ordering costs against the Director where parents have acted responsibly. The court held that the Supreme Court had the power to direct that costs in the Children’s Court be paid on the Supreme Court scale, despite the lack of clarity in the legislation and regulations. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant, Christine Lesley Healy, pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to the court.

Orders of the court

The appeal to this Court be dismissed.

The appellantDirector pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to this Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	) ACT G 28 of 1997 )
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:	DIRECTOR OF FAMILY SERVICES in the capacity of Christine Lesley Healy Appellant
AND:	MICHAEL CAMPIONE and MELISSA CAMPIONE Respondents

JUDGE(s):	MILES, R.D. NICHOLSON & FINN JJ
PLACE:	CANBERRA
DATED:	15 April 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	) ACT G 28 of…