Green v Bradbury (No 2)

Case [2011] FCA 469

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Green v Bradbury (No 2) [2011] FCA 469

Citation: Green v Bradbury (No 2) [2011] FCA 469
Parties:

GRAHAM FREEMANTLE v DEBORAH O’NEILL, AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW) and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION

ROBYN PEEBLES v SENATOR LEE RHIANNON, AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW), AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION and SENATOR JOHN FAULKNER

ANDREW GREEN v DAVID BRADBURY, AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW) and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
File number(s): NSD 1665 of 2010
NSD 1667 of 2010
NSD 1668 of 2010
Judge: EMMETT J
Date of judgment: 13 April 2011
Legislation: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ss 168, 326, 327, 360, 371
Cases cited: R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Smith v Australian Electoral Commission (No 2) [2008] FCA 1310
Date of hearing: 11 March 2011 and 13 April 2011
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 19
Counsel for the petitioners in all proceedings: P. E. King
Solicitor for the petitioners in all proceedings: James R. G. Bell
Counsel for the first respondents in NSD 1665 of 2010 and NSD 1668 of 2010: A. D. Lang
Solicitor for the first respondents in NSD 1665 of 2010 and NSD 1668 of 2010: Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the first respondent in NSD 1667 of 2010: T. Molomby SC, K. Longin
Solicitor for the first respondent in NSD 1667 of 2010: G. J. Gooden
Counsel for the second respondent in all proceedings: The second respondent did not appear
Counsel for the third respondent in all proceedings: K. Stern, S. Daley
Solicitor for the third respondent in all proceedings: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the fourth respondent in NSD 1667 of 2010: The fourth respondent did not appear
Counsel for the Commonwealth: S. Daley
Solicitor for the Commonwealth: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1665 of 2010
BETWEEN:

GRAHAM FREEMANTLE
Petitioner
AND:

DEBORAH O’NEILL
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW)
Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 APRIL 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The petitioner pay the costs of the first and third respondents.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1667 of 2010
BETWEEN:

ROBYN PEEBLES
Petitioner
AND:

SENATOR LEE RHIANNON
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY (NSW)
Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Third Respondent

SENATOR JOHN FAULKNER
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 APRIL 2011

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The petitioner pay the costs of the first respondent on the basis that the first respondent is entitled to all reasonable costs reasonably incurred in connection with the proceeding.

2.The petitioner pay the costs of the other respondents on the usual party/party basis.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders…

Continue reading Green v Bradbury (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Green v Bradbury (No 2) [2011] FCA 469
Case
[2011] FCA 469
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Green v Bradbury (No 2) involved a petitioner, Green, who was seeking certain remedies against multiple respondents, with Bradbury being one of the respondents. The nature of the dispute pertained to issues arising out of a legal proceeding, although the specific details of the underlying matter were not elaborated upon in the text. The case was heard in an unspecified court in Australia, likely at an appellate level given the context of the orders.

The legal issues before the court involved the allocation of costs associated with the proceeding. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate party responsible for bearing the costs of the litigation and the extent to which those costs should be apportioned among the parties. This included deciding whether the petitioner should bear the costs of the respondents and, if so, on what basis and to what extent.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the entitlement of the first respondent, Bradbury, to all reasonable costs incurred in connection with the proceeding. The court found that the petitioner was to pay the costs of the first respondent on this basis. For the other respondents, the court ordered that the petitioner pay the costs on the usual party/party basis, which typically means each party bears their own costs unless a specific order dictates otherwise. The reasoning behind the court's decision appears to be grounded in the outcome of the proceeding and the statutory or common law principles guiding cost allocation in such contexts.

The final orders of the court mandated that the petitioner pay the costs of the first respondent comprehensively and the costs of the other respondents on the standard party/party basis. These orders reflect the court's determination of the financial responsibilities arising from the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The petitioner pay the costs of the first and third respondents.

Note:

1. The petitioner pay the costs of the first respondent on the basis that the first respondent is entitled to all reasonable costs reasonably incurred in connection with the proceeding.

2. The petitioner pay the costs of the other respondents on the usual party/party basis.

Note:

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.