Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) - [2006] FCAFC 38

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 38
COSTS – unnecessary appeal papers – obligation to cooperate in the preparation of appeal index so as to avoid unnecessary costs
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44(1)
Federal Court Rules O 52 r 28, O 53 r 16
RONALD PURVIS, KAYLENE PURVIS & ROGER CLARK v DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
No SAD 77 of 2005
BLACK CJ, BRANSON & FINN JJ
ADELAIDE
22 MARCH 2006

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 77 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

RONALD PURVIS
FIRST APPLICANT

KAYLENE PURVIS
SECOND APPLICANT

ROGER CLARK
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, BRANSON & FINN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent pay to the applicants 50 per cent of the costs of the preparation of the appeal papers.
2.Subject to order 1 hereof, the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the application other than the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its notice of contention.
3.The costs ordered to be paid by order 1 hereof be set off against the costs ordered to be paid by order 2 hereof.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 77 of 2005

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

RONALD PURVIS
FIRST APPLICANT

KAYLENE PURVIS
SECOND APPLICANT

ROGER CLARK
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, BRANSON & FINN JJ

DATE:

22 MARCH 2006

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BLACK CJ
INTRODUCTION

When judgment in this application by way of appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was delivered on 23 January 2006 the only substantive order made was that the application be dismissed. The parties were however ordered to file and serve written submissions on the question of costs.
In the course of the hearing I had expressed my concern about the size of the appeal papers. They consisted of nine volumes containing, in all, over 900 pages and they seemed to me to go far beyond what the nature of the case required.
The costs involved in the preparation of any appeal are likely to be considerable and they should not be increased by the production of unnecessary documents. Moreover, since at least five copies of the appeal papers will need to be produced when, as here, the matter comes before a Full Court of three judges, the cost of including each unnecessary document is, broadly speaking, multiplied fivefold.
The burden of costs is an impediment to access to the courts and it is appropriate for the Court, in the public interest, to discourage the incurring of unnecessary costs, including the costs of unnecessary appeal papers. In relation to appeals to a Full Court in the Court’s appellate jurisdiction (and in relation to other…

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 Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (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: [2006] FCAFC 38
Decision Date: 22 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) involved the applicants challenging the costs incurred by the respondent, the Dairy Adjustment Authority, for the notice of contention. The applicants argued that the respondent's statement of facts and contentions was excessively long, resulting in unnecessary costs. They cited Practice Note 1 as a guideline for the length of submissions. Practice Note 1, which applies to appeals and other proceedings before the Full Court, stipulates that outlines of submissions should not exceed 10 pages. The court was required to determine whether the length of the respondent's statement provided a basis for departing from the standard rule that costs follow the event.

The court examined whether the respondent's statement of facts and contentions was excessively lengthy and whether it warranted a deviation from the usual cost-bearing rule. It noted that while Practice Note 1 applied to the proceedings, Mansfield J had directed the parties to file a statement of facts and contentions rather than an outline of submissions. Therefore, the court found that the note did not apply to the specifics of this case. Ultimately, the court was not persuaded that the length of the respondent's statement justified any departure from the norm that costs follow the event.

Consequently, the court ruled that the applicants were not entitled to have the respondent's costs of the notice of contention. Instead, it ordered that the respondent pay 50 per cent of the applicants' costs for preparing the appeal papers. The applicants were to bear the remaining costs of the application, excluding those related to the notice of contention. The costs payable by the respondent were to be offset against the costs payable by the applicants. The judges concurred with the Chief Justice's reasons and proposed orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay to the applicants 50 per cent of the costs of the preparation of the appeal papers.

2. Subject to order 1 hereof, the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the application other than the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its notice of contention.

3. The costs ordered to be paid by order 1 hereof be set off against the costs ordered to be paid by order 2 hereof.

Background

Background to the litigation

I would not allow the respondent its costs of the notice of contention.STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CONTENTIONS The applicants have complained that the respondent’s statement of facts and contentions, which was filed pursuant to a direction made by Mansfield J, was excessively long and put the applicants to unnecessary cost. The applicants sought to support their complaint by reference to Practice Note 1. Practice Note 1 applies to all parties to appeals before the Full Court. It applies to other proceedings before the Full Court only in so far as the practices and procedures described in the practice note are appropriate to such other proceedings. The reference in Practice Note 1 to ‘appeals’ is a reference to appeal proceedings in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court (see s 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). A statutory appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of the AAT Act, when heard by a Full Court, is for the purposes of Practice Note 1 a proceeding before the Full Court other than an appeal. Part B of Practice Note 1 provides for the preparation of outlines of submissions not ordinarily exceeding 10 pages in length. Mansfield J did not order the parties to prepare an outline of submissions but rather to file a statement of facts and contentions. It may be assumed that his Honour did not envisage that the parties would additionally file outlines of their respective submissions. Part B of Practice Note 1 thus had no application this case – notwithstanding the terms of O 53 r 16A which applies those rules in O 52 that concern written submissions mutatis mutandis to an appeal under O 53. I am not satisfied that any aspect of the respondent’s statement of facts and contentions provides a basis for departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.CONCLUSION I would make orders for costs as follows:1. The respondent pay to the applicants 50 per cent of the costs of the preparation of the appeal papers.2. Subject to order 1 hereof, the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the application other than the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its notice of contention.3. The costs ordered to be paid by order 1 hereof be set off against the costs ordered to be paid by order 2 hereof. I agree with the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and with the orders proposed by him. I agree with the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and with the orders proposed by him.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I am not satisfied that any aspect of the respondent’s statement of facts and contentions provides a basis for departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.CONCLUSION I would make orders for costs as follows:1. The respondent pay to the applicants 50 per cent of the costs of the preparation of the appeal papers.2. Subject to order 1 hereof, the applicants pay the respondent’s costs of the application other than the respondent’s costs of and incidental to its notice of contention.3. The costs ordered to be paid by order 1 hereof be set off against the costs ordered to be paid by order 2 hereof. I agree with the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and with the orders proposed by him. I agree with the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and with the orders proposed by him.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 77 of 2005

BETWEEN:	RONALD PURVIS FIRST APPLICANT KAYLENE PURVIS SECOND APPLICANT ROGER CLARK THIRD APPLICANT
AND:	DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, BRANSON & FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	22 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 77 of 2005

JUDGES:	BLACK CJ, BRANSON & FINN JJ
DATE:	22 MARCH 2006
PLACE:	ADELAIDE