FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Health Insurance Commission v Grey [2002] FCAFC 283
COSTS – whether ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply.
THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION, ALAN JOHN HOLMES (as Director of Professional Services Review), CHING TSIANG (as Chairperson of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), JOHN GARNER (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), BRUCE INGRAM (as a Member of Professional Services Committee No 126) AND LOUISE MORAUTA (as the Determining Officer) v JOHN HOWARD GREY
V1112 OF 2001
BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & ALLSOP JJ
6 SEPTEMBER 2002
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 1112 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION, ALAN JOHN HOLMES (as Director of Professional Services Review), CHING TSIANG (as Chairperson of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), JOHN GARNER (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), BRUCE INGRAM (as a Member of Professional Services Committee No 126) AND LOUISE MORAUTA (as the Determining Officer)
APPELLANTSAND:
JOHN HOWARD GREY
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & ALLSOP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
6 SEPTEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellants’ costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and of the proceedings at first instance (including its costs of the issue and hearing of the Notice of Motion filed on 19 April 2001) be paid by the respondent.
2.The respondent should have a Costs Certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 1112 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION, ALAN JOHN HOLMES (as Director of Professional Services Review), CHING TSIANG (as Chairperson of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), JOHN GARNER (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 126), BRUCE INGRAM (as a Member of Professional Services Committee No 126) AND LOUISE MORAUTA (as the Determining Officer)
APPELLANTSAND:
JOHN HOWARD GREY
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG & ALLSOP JJ
DATE:
15 MAY 2002
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
On 15 May 2002, the Full Court made these orders:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The orders made at first instance be set aside; in lieu thereof, order that the proceedings below be dismissed.
3.The cross-appeal be dismissed.
4.All costs reserved. Liberty to the parties to file and serve written submissions on costs within twenty-eight days.
We have now received submissions on costs.
In our view, the Health Insurance Commission’s submissions are correct. No reason exists for departing from the usual rule. Moreover, we see no reason to stay an order for costs. However, we are of the view that the respondent should have a Costs Certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
Accordingly, in respect of costs, we order that:
1.The appellants’ costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and of the proceedings at first instance (including its costs of the issue and hearing of the Notice of Motion filed on 19 April 2001) be paid by the respondent.
2.The respondent should have a Costs Certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Court Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate:
Dated: 6 September 2002
Counsel for the Appellants: Ms F Hampel SC
Mr S MoloneySolicitor for the Appellants: Minter Ellison Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Monotti
Mr P LithgowSolicitor for the Respondent: Grundy Maitland & Co Date of Judgment: 6 September 2002
- AGLC
- Health Insurance Commission v Grey [2002] FCAFC 283
- Case
- [2002] FCAFC 283
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the respondents had fulfilled their obligation to provide information and documentation to support their claim for health care benefits, and whether the FMS had correctly ordered the respondents to pay the HIC’s costs. The court also had to determine whether the HIC had properly assessed the respondents' claim. The court found that the respondents had not provided all the necessary information and documentation to support their claim, and that the FMS had correctly ordered them to pay the HIC’s costs. The court also found that the HIC had properly assessed the respondents' claim. The court held that the appeal and cross-appeal should be dismissed, with the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and of the proceedings at first instance.
The court ordered that the appellants’ costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and of the proceedings at first instance, including its costs of the issue and hearing of the Notice of Motion filed on 19 April 2001, be paid by the respondent. The court also ordered that the respondent should have a Costs Certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellants’ costs of the appeal, the cross-appeal, and of the proceedings at first instance (including its costs of the issue and hearing of the Notice of Motion filed on 19 April 2001) be paid by the respondent.
2. The respondent should have a Costs Certificate pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).
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.