unsuccessful applicant in main action and ordered to pay costs
-
i'
0.62 r.44 Federal Court Rules
- power of court to review
- nature
~
1
I
of review
- discretion
of taxing officer
- what costs can be
I
properly
allowed
- perusing
or
scanning
- necessity
and
I
justification of allowed costs
- partylparty costs
- counsel fees
l
senior and lunior.
1 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act
l
:
Fecleral
Court Rules, 063. r.44
I
I
Australian
Coal
and
Shale
Zmplovees' Federation v.
Commonwealth (1553) 94 C.L.R.
621 at P.628
i
Fat-Se1 Pty Ltd
v. Brambles Holdinos Ltd
(1985) 61 A.L.R.
536
Commissioner of
Taxation v.
Gulland Watson, Lepal Reporter
15
April 1996
M&na
Allovs & Research Ptv Ltd
v. Coffee (No. 2 ) (1982) V.R.
97
at p.109
PORSTER, J.
I
-ADELAIDE
I
-
11 JULY 1986
I
I
1
.
IN THE FEDEFAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
1
1
SOUTH AUSTPALIA DISTP.ICT REGISTRY
1
No. G50 of 1981
)
GENEWL DIVISION
1
B E T W E F N :
PALKON AGRICULTUPIIL COMPANY
PTY LIMITED
Applicant
- and -
ABORIGINPJ; DEVELOPMENT CONYISSION and 3 J I O W .
Respondent
MINUTE OF ORDEP.
JUDGE MAKING ORDER
FORSTEE J.
WHERE MADE
PDELAIDE
DATE OF ORDEF.
11 JULY 1986
THE COURT 0RDEF.S THAT:
l
. a
1.
This matter be
remitted to
taxing
he
officer
to
I .
~
make the necessary alterations
to his certificate to comply
..
with the court's findings.
I .
i
2.
Further
submissions
be
h ard
as to the appropriate
/ '
!
c
order for costs.
L .
.
! '
t .
,.
. ,
-
Note: Settlement and entry
of
orders is dealt with in
1.
.
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
1
I I
c,<
I
L ~.
' ,
I N THE FEDERPJ. COmT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
SOUTH AUSTPALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
No. G50 of 1 9 8 1
GENE-&
D I V I S I O N
1
B E T W E E N :
PJLLKON AGRICULTUFUL COMPANY
PTY
L I M I T E D
Applicant
- and -
ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION and ANOTHEX
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CORPA: Forster, J.
This is a review of
a taxation of costs carried out by
the District lieglscrar
OF this Court.
The review is pursuant to
Order 62 Rule 44 of the Federal Court
Rules. The applicant for
review was the unsuccessful applicant in the main action ordered
to pay the costs
of the
respondent.
The applicant objects
before me and objected befcre the taxing officer to the amount
allowed in the taxation with respect to fourteen separate items
I .
or groups of items. Upon reconsideration pursuant to
0 .62
R.43
I ,
the taxing officer taxed off entirely the amount
he had allocated
on taxation with respect to one item and reduced another item
by
$100.
The respondent, by…
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.
Continue reading Ralkon Agricultural Co. Pty Ltd v Aboriginal Development Com...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ralkon Agricultural Co. Pty Ltd v Aboriginal Development Commission [1986] FCA 320
Case
[1986] FCA 320
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Court of Australia reviewed a taxation of costs carried out by the District Registrar of the Court. The applicant, Ralkon Agricultural Co. Pty Ltd, was the unsuccessful party in the main action and was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent, Aboriginal Development Commission. The applicant objected to the amount allowed in the taxation with respect to fourteen separate items or groups of items. The first legal issue was the nature of the review and the powers of the court when conducting it. The court held that the review was not a hearing de novo but an appeal stricto sensu, where the court would only intervene if the taxing officer had made a mistake or proceeded on a wrong principle. The second issue was the propriety of the costs claimed by the respondent. The court found that the taxing officer had erred in allowing certain costs, such as the fees for perusals of documents and counsel fees. The court reduced the fees for perusals of documents and remodelled the counsel fees to include a fee on brief and refreshers. The court also disallowed certain costs, such as the fees for copying discovered documents and the fees for preparing and supplying reasons for decision. The final issue was the appropriate order for costs. The court remitted the matter to the taxing officer to make the necessary alterations to his certificate to comply with the court's findings and heard further submissions as to the appropriate order for costs. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the taxing officer to make the necessary alterations to his certificate to comply with the court's findings and that further submissions be heard as to the appropriate order for costs.