Garnaut v Child Support Registrar

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Garnaut v Child Support Registrar [2004] FCA 1303

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 referred to

PATRICIA ANNE GARNAUT v CATHERINE ARGALL, CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

No Q 107 of 2003

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
11 OCTOBER 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 107 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	PATRICIA ANNE GARNAUT APPLICANT
AND:	CATHERINE ARGALL, CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent pay the costs of the applicant, fixed in the sum of $500.00, as a consequence of the hearing on 30 July 2003. 

2.There be no order as to costs of and incidental to the appearance on 3 February  2004, nor as to the  costs of and incidental to the notice of motion heard on 23 March 2004. 

3.The applicant otherwise pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, those costs to be taxed if not agreed. 

4.The costs ordered to be paid by the applicant to the respondent should be offset by the costs ordered to be paid by the respondent to the applicant.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 107 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	PATRICIA ANNE GARNAUT APPLICANT
AND:	CATHERINE ARGALL, CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	11 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I gave judgment in this matter on 25 August 2004, dismissing Ms Garnaut’s application for an order of review.  On that day I directed that the respondent file and serve any submissions with respect to costs within seven days, and the applicant file and serve any submissions with respect to costs within fourteen days. 

2. Both parties have made submissions concerning costs in accordance with those directions. 

3. Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) confers power on the Court to award costs. The award of costs under that section is in the discretion of the Court.

4. In Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229, Black CJ and French J said at 235:

   ‘The award of costs to a successful party is principally by way of perceived restorative justice.  The general rule assumes that where an applicant succeeds it will have incurred costs because the respondent’s conduct made it necessary for the applicant to bring the proceedings.  If the applicant fails, the respondent will have incurred costs defending an action which ought not to have been brought against it.  The order made in such cases is compensatory. …’

5. The general rule is that costs follow the event, unless there are some special circumstances to deviate from that rule.  The fact that Ms Garnaut conducted her application without the benefit of legal representation is a matter that has to be taken into account, but does not preclude the making…