IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 1707 of 1996
BETWEEN:
ANDREW RABEL
ApplicantAND:
WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
JUDGE:
RYAN J
DATE:
18 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant seeks a stay, pending an appeal instituted by notice dated 7 July 1998, of an order made on 22 June 1998 by a single Judge of this Court requiring the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of an application for review of a decision of a judicial registrar under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 which his Honour had earlier dismissed. The applicant has referred to a number of authorities, some of them concerned with motions for security for costs, indicating that a stay of an order below should be granted where, without it, the appeal would be rendered nugatory. However, despite being requested to do so by the respondent, the applicant has not filed any material disclosing his present financial position, nor have the costs ordered by the learned primary Judge yet been taxed. There is no suggestion that the respondent, Whitehorse City Council, would be unable to repay any costs which the applicant might have been compelled to pay pending the appeal.
The respondent has presently had to meet out of its own funds the costs of a ten day rehearing before the learned primary Judge which his Honour held had been instituted without reasonable cause. If a stay were granted, the respondent would also have to fund its defence to the appeal, without having the measure of security which recovery of the costs already ordered would afford it. In these circumstances, I consider it inappropriate to grant a stay on
the present material. The motion will, accordingly, be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the applicant to renew his application on proper material after the costs have been taxed or agreed. The costs of both parties of the motion, including the costs of this day, will be costs in the appeal.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Ryan.
Associate:
Dated: 18 August 1998
Counsel for the Applicant: - Solicitor for the Applicant: Appearance in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Staindl Solicitor for the Respondent: Gary Katz & Associates Date of Hearing: 18 August 1998 Date of Judgment: 18 August 1998
- AGLC
- Rabel, Andrew Frank v Whitehorse City Council [1998] FCA 969
- Case
- [1998] FCA 969
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's motion for a stay should be granted. The applicant argued that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted, citing several authorities. However, the applicant did not provide any information about his financial situation or the taxed costs ordered by the primary judge. The respondent, Whitehorse City Council, had already incurred significant costs from a rehearing that was deemed to have been instituted without reasonable cause. If the stay was granted, the respondent would also have to bear the costs of defending the appeal without the security of the already ordered costs.
Justice Ryan determined that it was inappropriate to grant the stay due to the lack of financial information from the applicant and the significant costs already incurred by the respondent. The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, allowing the applicant to renew the application once proper material was provided after the costs were taxed or agreed. Both parties' costs for the motion, including the costs of the day's hearing, were to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.