Paddon v Repatriation Commission (No 2)

[2010] FCA 1161

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Paddon v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2010] FCA 1161

Citation:		Paddon v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2010] FCA 1161
Appeal from:		Paddon and Repatriation Commission [2010] AATA 470
Parties:		RICHARD BARRATT PADDON v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number:		QUD 294 of 2010
Judge:		LOGAN J
Date of judgment:		22 October 2010
Date of hearing:	22 October 2010
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R Clutterbuck
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Haney Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 294 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	RICHARD BARRATT PADDON Applicant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 OCTOBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.There be no order as to costs.

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
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 294 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	RICHARD BARRATT PADDON Applicant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE:	22 OCTOBER 2010
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Application has been made on behalf of the Repatriation Commission (Commission) for an order for costs.  [The application was a sequel to my dismissing Mr Paddon’s appeal in Paddon v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1147.]

2. The discretion as to costs is at large, but it must, of course, be exercised judicially.  In the ordinary course of events, a judicial exercise of discretion would tell in favour of an order that costs follow the event.

3. The event in this case is the order ultimately made which is that the appeal be dismissed.  In the path to that event, the applicant, Mr Paddon, enjoyed a degree of forensic success.  Indeed, on the two construction issues which were argued, he succeeded in respect of both the interpretation of the word “chronic” and the word “concerns” in the relevant statements of principles.  He also succeeded in demonstrating that, in relation to the tribunal’s addressing of the word “chronic” for its finding of fact, the tribunal had failed adequately to expose its reasons.

4. Those considerations, if costs were to be taxed on an issues basis, would suggest at the very least that some allowance ought to be made for his forensic success.  On the other hand, having initially agitated whether the tribunal had erred in law in relation to its finding as to clinical onset, Mr Paddon ultimately came to concede that there was no error in that regard.  That particular error, it might be said, necessarily carried with it, having regard to the requirement that all of the elements of a Statement of Principles be satisfied, the forensic consequence that the appeal was futile, and thus it was unnecessary to agitate the questions upon which Mr Paddon succeeded.

5. As can be seen, then, there are factors which tell either way in relation to costs.  On balance, the view I have reached, having regard to those factors, is that there should be no order as to costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:        27 October 2010