Julien v Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

Case [2009] FMCA 259

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JULIEN v DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & WORKPLACE RELATIONS [2009] FMCA 259
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from AAT – appeal dismissed – costs.
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Conlan v Mladenis [2008] FMCA 1214
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47
Yates Property Corp Pty Ltd v Boland (No 2) [1997] FCA 760
Zhang v Kanellos (No 2) [2005] FMCA 418
Applicant: ARCHIE JULIEN
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & WORKPLACE RELATIONS
File Number: BRG 896 of 2007
Judgment of: Burnett FM
Hearing date: 19 December 2007
Date of Last Submission: 19 December 2007
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 1 April 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

ORDERS

  1. That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including reserve costs fixed in the sum of $8,752.74.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 896 of 2007

ARCHIE JULIEN

Applicant

And

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT & WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 19 December 2007 I determined an appeal in this matter.  The appeal was dismissed.   At the time of delivery of judgment the matter of costs was left to the parties to negotiate.  The parties have not been able to agree on costs.

  2. Following reference to the Registrar directions were issued requiring each of the parties to exchange submissions.  In accordance with the Registrar’s directions submissions were filed and delivered by the appellant and the respondent on 8 and 10 December 2008 respectively.

  3. The respondent being successful seeks costs.  The appellant resists that application and in turn claims for the recovery of his costs.

  4. The relevant provisions in respect of costs are contained in section 79(2) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) and Federal Magistrates Court Rules 21.02(2).  In broad terms the Court has an unfettered discretion with respect to orders for costs.  The discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances relevant to the particular case.[1]

  5. Ordinarily costs follow the event and a successful litigant receives his or her costs in the absence of special circumstances justifying some other order.[2]

    [2] Zang v Kanellos (No 2) [2005] FMCA 418; Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47; Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at [63] – [67] per McHugh J.

  6. In this case the only matter advanced against the order for costs is the appellant’s contention that my order was in error as I “mistakenly struggled to adduce the character of my pension from other sources, through several subsequent paragraphs”.  If I was incorrect in my determination that is a matter that can be corrected on appeal.  In any event for present purposes the fact that the respondent disagrees with my decision is not a matter demonstrating special circumstances justifying a departure from the usual costs order.

  7. The appeal was dismissed. The respondent was put to the trouble and expense of responding to the appeal and in my view is entitled to an order for costs in his favour by reason of its successful defence of the appeal.

  8. The respondent seeks costs in accordance with the Court’s scale totalling $8,752.74. The items claimed for are appropriate and the quantum therefore is appropriate. I assess the respondent’s costs at $8,752.74.

  9. It follows the respondent should receive an order in its favour for costs fixed in the sum of $8,752.74.

Order

  1. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including reserve costs fixed in the sum of $8,752.74.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burnett FM

Associate:      Beverley Schmidt

Date:              1 April 2009


Details
AGLC
Julien v Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FMCA 259
Case
[2009] FMCA 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Julien v Department of Employment and Workplace Relations involved an appeal by the appellant, Julien, against a decision made by the respondent, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, regarding the appellant’s eligibility for a pension benefit. The appellant argued that the respondent had incorrectly assessed his eligibility for the pension and that the decision-making process was flawed. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the respondent’s decision to deny the appellant's pension benefit was lawful and whether the respondent had adhered to the relevant statutory and procedural requirements in making that decision. The court also needed to determine whether the respondent's decision-making process was fair and whether there were any errors in the application of the law.

The court found that the respondent's decision was well-grounded in the relevant legislation and that the decision-making process was procedurally fair. The court held that there were no material errors in the respondent’s assessment of the appellant’s eligibility for the pension benefit. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent’s decision. The court further ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, including reserve costs, fixed in the sum of $8,752.74.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal including reserve costs fixed in the sum of $8,752.74.

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.