Joyce v Grimshaw

[2001] FCA 287

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Joyce v Grimshaw [2001] FCA 287

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s 43
Crimes Act 1914, s 29B

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534

ALLAN JOYCE v FRANK RICHARD GRIMSHAW
A 42 of 2000

MILES, MATHEWS & WEINBERG JJ
22 March 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A42 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	ALLAN JOYCE APPELLANT
AND:	FRANK RICHARD GRIMSHAW RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MILES, MATHEWS and WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 March 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party and party basis.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

 DISTRICT REGISTRY

A42 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	ALLAN JOYCE APPELLANT
AND:	FRANK RICHARD GRIMSHAW RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MILES, MATHEWS and WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	22 March 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON COSTS

THE COURT:

1. This appeal was dismissed and the reasons for judgment published on 16 February 2001. The parties were given 14 days in which to file and serve written submissions in relation to the question of costs of the appeal. The respondent submits that this is an appropriate case for the award of costs in favour of the respondent pursuant to the discretion vested in the Court by s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.

2. The appeal related essentially to the construction of s 29B of the Crimes Act 1914. The construction contended for by the respondent was accepted by the Court.

3. The discretion to award costs under s 43 is analogous to the discretion under consideration in Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 in which Mason CJ said at 544 that “in ordinary circumstances, an order for costs should be made in favour of a successful defendant”.

4. No written submission has been received from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions who appeared to argue the case for the appellant.  It is understood that the Director does not wish to put any submissions contrary to those of the respondent.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal on a party and party basis.  In the event that agreement cannot be reached, costs are to be taxed in accordance with O 62 r 4 of the Federal Court Rules.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             22 March 2001

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr P Hastings QC
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P Willee QC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	pappas, j. – attorney
Date of Hearing:	15 November 2000
Date of Judgment:	22 March 2001