Hood v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
[2010] FCA 640
•22 June 2010
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hood v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2010] FCA 640
Citation: Hood v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 640 Appeal from: Hood and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 345 Parties: NEIL HOOD v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS File number: VID 392 of 2009 Judge: RYAN J Date of judgment: 22 June 2010 Date of hearing: 19 May 2010 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Appellant: Ms A M Sheehan appeared pro bono Counsel for the Respondent: Ms J MacDonnell Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 392 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: NEIL HOOD
AppellantAND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 JUNE 2010
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Each party bear his or her own costs of the proceeding herein.
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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 392 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: NEIL HOOD
AppellantAND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
JUDGE:
RYAN J
DATE:
22 JUNE 2010
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 4 June 2010, I delivered the substantive judgment in these proceedings: Hood v Secretary, Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] FCA 555 (see now, by corrigendum issued 21 June 2010, Hood v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 555). The proceeding, as appears from that judgment, was an appeal brought under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I found (see the substantive judgment at [11]ff) that, of the questions contended to arise from the Tribunal’s decision, none was a s 44 question properly so-called, and, to the extent that I could discern a question of law underlying any of the pleaded questions, none could not be answered favourably to the appellant. In the result, as I indicated at [31] of the substantive reasons, Mr Hood was not entitled to the relief he sought, and I accordingly dismissed his appeal.
I also indicated, given the nature of the case, that I would hear Counsel as to costs. Each of Ms Sheehan of Counsel, for the appellant, and Ms Weymouth, for the Minister, indicated when the substantive judgment was delivered that they wished to be heard on the question. My Associate therefore arranged, by correspondence, a timetable for the filing and exchange of written submissions on costs. On 18 June 2010, the day on which the Minister’s submissions were due, the Minister’s solicitors wrote to him, so far as is relevant, to indicate that;
… the respondent does not seek an order for its costs in this matter.
In that case, I consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion conferred on me by s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to order that each party bear his or her own costs of the proceeding herein.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan. Associate:
Dated: 22 June 2010
0
1
0