Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) - [2021] FCA 677

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2021] FCA 677

File number: QUD 254 of 2020

Judgment of: WHITE J

Date of judgment: 22 June 2021

Catchwords: COSTS – consideration of the discretion to award costs under s 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether impecuniosity of the unsuccessful applicant sufficient to deny the successful parties of their costs – applicant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.

Legislation:
Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 22

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2)

Cases cited:
Matson v Attorney‑General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161

Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164

Division: General Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings

Number of paragraphs: 23

Date of last submission/s: 14 April 2020

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was self‑represented

Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr G del Villar QC with Mr M McKechnie

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 254 of 2020

BETWEEN:
BARON PHILLIP MATSON

Applicant

AND:
THE ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE HONOURABLE DONALD J TRUMP (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WHITE J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Order No 5 made on 3 March 2021 requiring the Applicant to pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents of and incidental to the proceedings is confirmed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHITE J:

On 3 March 2021, I delivered judgment granting the respondents summary judgment dismissing the applicant’s Originating Application filed on 4 August 2020: Matson v Attorney‑General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161 (Matson 2021). By that application, the applicant had sought relief in a variety of forms directed to precluding the first and second respondents from effecting his extradition to the United States of America.
Matson 2021 also dismissed a number of interlocutory applications of the applicant, including an application sent to the Court on 6 January 2021 and filed on 11 January 2021 by which he sought a reopening of the hearing. I had conducted a hearing of that application on 4 February 2021.
Matson 2021 also contained my refusal of an application made by the applicant on 19 February 2021 for leave to reopen the interlocutory application filed on 11 January 2021.
As the parties had not been heard on the question of costs, the orders made on 3 March 2021 included a default order that the applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed in default…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] FCA 677
Decision Date: 22 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) involves the applicant, Matson, and the first and second respondents, the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General. The primary dispute revolves around the consideration of the discretion to award costs under section 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the impecuniosity of the unsuccessful applicant was a sufficient ground to deny the successful parties their costs. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation and application of section 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in the context of the impecuniosity of the unsuccessful party. The court needed to consider whether the financial status of the unsuccessful party, Matson, was a valid reason to deny the respondents their costs. The court also had to assess the broader implications of the decision on the principles of costs in federal litigation.

The court, in its reasoning, concluded that the impecuniosity of the unsuccessful applicant was not a sufficient ground to deny the successful parties their costs. The court found that while the applicant's financial status was a relevant factor, it was not determinative in the context of the statutory discretion provided under section 43(2) of the Act. The court confirmed that the unsuccessful party should bear the costs of the first and second respondents as ordered in the earlier proceedings. The final orders were made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order No 5 made on 3 March 2021 requiring the Applicant to pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents of and incidental to the proceedings is confirmed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

File number:	QUD 254 of 2020
Judgment of:	WHITE J
Date of judgment:	22 June 2021
Catchwords:	COSTS – consideration of the discretion to award costs under s 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether impecuniosity of the unsuccessful applicant sufficient to deny the successful parties of their costs – applicant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.
Legislation:	Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 22 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(2)
Cases cited:	Matson v Attorney‑General (Cth) [2021] FCA 161 Northern Territory v Sangare [2019] HCA 25; (2019) 265 CLR 164
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Federal Crime and Related Proceedings
Number of paragraphs:	23
Date of last submission/s:	14 April 2020
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant was self‑represented
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	Mr G del Villar QC with Mr M McKechnie
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents:	The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents did not appear

ORDER MADE BY:	WHITE J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JUNE 2021