FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ellis v Central Land Council (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 11
Appeal from: Ellis v Central Land Council [2018] FCA 35 File number: NTD 15 of 2018 Judges: BARKER, GRIFFITHS AND WHITE JJ Date of judgment: 5 February 2019 Catchwords: COSTS – determination of costs – where the parties agreed as to how costs should be awarded save for the issue whether the second and sixth respondents should be awarded their costs in the appeal and cross-appeal – where the second and sixth respondents added little by way of submissions – Held: the second and sixth respondents should bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal Cases cited: Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 1 February 2019 Registry: Northern Territory Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Appellants and First, Second and Third Cross-Respondents: Mr N M Wood with Mr J E Hartley Solicitor for the Appellants and First, Second and Third Cross-Respondents: Midena Lawyers Counsel for the First and Fifth Respondents and Cross-Appellants: Mr S Glacken QC with Mr C P Young Solicitor for the First and Fifth Respondents and Cross-Appellants: Central Land Council Counsel for the Second and Sixth Respondents and Fourth and Seventh Cross-Respondents: Mr R M D Levy Solicitor for the Second and Sixth Respondents and Fourth and Seventh Cross-Respondents: Solicitor for the Northern Territory ORDERS
NTD 15 of 2018 BETWEEN: MARIE ELENA ELLIS
First AppellantROSEANNE PHILOMENA ELLIS
Second AppellantIMWERNKWERNHE COMMUNITY LIMITED (ACN 161 185 100)
Third AppellantAND: CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL
First Respondent
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
MACDONNELL REGIONAL COUNCIL (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
AND BETWEEN: CENTRAL LAND COUNCIL (and another named in the Schedule)
First Cross-Appellant
AND: MARIE ELENA ELLIS (and others named in the Schedule)
First Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
BARKER, GRIFFITHS AND WHITE J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 FEBRUARY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellants pay the first and fifth respondents’ costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed.
2.The cross-appellants pay the first to third cross-respondents’ costs of the cross-appeal, as agreed or assessed.
3.The second, third, fourth and sixth respondents (who are the fourth to seventh cross-respondents) bear their own costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
4.All parties bear their own costs in relation to the notices of contention.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
On 24 January 2019, the Court published its reasons for judgment in this matter (see Ellis v Central Land Council [2019] FCAFC 1). The parties were invited to make submissions on the issue of costs and any other consequential relief arising from those reasons for judgment.
The parties have availed themselves of that opportunity. They agree that the Court should order the appellants to pay the costs…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ellis v Central Land Council (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCAFC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the second and sixth respondents, who had contributed little in terms of submissions, should be awarded their costs in the appeal and cross-appeal. This involved examining the contributions of each party to the proceedings and assessing whether their involvement warranted a costs award. The court considered the submissions and arguments presented by the parties and the extent to which they had contributed to the proceedings.
The court found that the second and sixth respondents had made minimal contributions to the appeal and cross-appeal. It was determined that their submissions did not warrant a costs award, and thus they should bear their own costs. The court ruled that the appellants should pay the first and fifth respondents' costs of the appeal, and the cross-appellants should pay the first to third cross-respondents' costs of the cross-appeal. The second, third, fourth and sixth respondents were ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, while all parties were to bear their own costs in relation to the notices of contention.
The court made specific orders regarding the costs allocation, directing that the appellants pay the first and fifth respondents' costs of the appeal, and the cross-appellants pay the first to third cross-respondents' costs of the cross-appeal. The second, third, fourth and sixth respondents were to bear their own costs, and all parties were to bear their own costs in relation to the notices of contention. The entry of these orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellants pay the first and fifth respondents’ costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed.
2. The cross-appellants pay the first to third cross-respondents’ costs of the cross-appeal, as agreed or assessed.
3. The second, third, fourth and sixth respondents (who are the fourth to seventh cross-respondents) bear their own costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.
4. All parties bear their own costs in relation to the notices of contention.
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.