Lawson v Gault

[2002] FCAFC 308

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lawson v Gault [2002] FCAFC 308

APPEALS – costs – whether unsuccessful respondent is entitled to costs certificate – Court has a discretion to grant rather than a discretion to refuse costs certificate

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 99, 99A
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 6

Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia (No. 2) (1985) 58 ALR 373 considered
Richards v Faulls Pty Ltd [1971] WAR 129 referred to

CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON v KATHRYN ANN GAULT

A 69 OF 2001

SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ
15 OCTOBER 2002
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A69 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON APPELLANT
AND:	KATHRYN ANN GAULT RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be refused.

2.        There be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

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

A69 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	CONSTABLE JOHN GERARD LAWSON APPELLANT
AND:	KATHRYN ANN GAULT RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	SPENDER & DOWSETT JJ
DATE:	15 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. On 20 June 2002 the Court published its reasons for upholding an appeal from a decision of Crispin J sitting in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. His Honour had allowed an appeal against findings by a magistrate that the respondent was guilty of certain offences of dishonesty. The respondent had appealed to the Supreme Court on numerous grounds, one of which was that the charges should have been brought pursuant to s 99A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) rather than s 99 of that Act. Crispin J upheld the appeal on that ground without considering the other grounds of appeal. This Court reversed that decision, holding that the prosecutor had correctly relied upon s 99A. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for reconsideration. It should be noted that before the magistrate, counsel for the respondent conceded that the proceedings were properly brought pursuant to s 99A but asserted that it was inappropriate to do so in the circumstances of the case.

2. This Court did not dispose of the question of costs at the time at which it published its reasons. The parties were invited to make any submissions in writing. Neither party has sought an order for costs against the other, but the respondent has sought an order pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth). That section provides:

   “(1)Subject to this Act, where a Federal Appeal succeeds on a question of law, the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of a respondent to the appeal, grant to…