JUDGMENT No, ..&LW7d / fPk
| IN THE F E D E W COURT OF AUSTRALIq | 1 |
| DUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRX | |
| GENENU DIVISION | 1 |
BETWEEN: JOHN RICHARD ROBINSOY
Applicant
AND: USTRALIAN ELECTORAL COWSSION
First Respondent
AND: STEPHEN BROWN
Second Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
| JUDGE MAKING ORDER: | Spender J |
| PATE OF ORDEq: | 30 August 1994 |
l
| WERE MADE;: | Brisbane | i |
| THE COURT ORDERS THAT: |
the applicant pay the respondents' costs of proceedings No. QG 192 of 1993, to be taxed if not agreed.
| NIX&: | Settaement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rule$. |
| submissions on t h e ques t ion of | c o s t s , which were | supplied t o |
| m e on 15 August. | I n those submissions, | re ference was made t o |
| S . | 43 | of | t h e Fede a | 1976. | I t is |
| c o r r e c t , | a s | w a s | submitted | by | Mr | Robinson, | t o note | t h a t |
| although | t h e | d i s c r e t i o n | of | t h e | c o u r t | t o award | c o s t s | may | be |
| regarded | a s | u n f e t t e r e d , | it | is | never the less | a | jud ic ia l |
| d i s c r e t i o n t o be | exerc i sed i n a | p r inc ip led way: | see Buuhes | v. |
| W e t | u s t r a 'a | (1986) ATPR 48-134 | a t |
| 48-136-7 | and | A u s t r a l i a n | C | o | c | q | v. | Fores t rv |
Reliance is placed by Mr Robinson on t h e approach of
. .
| Burchett | J | i n | Grav | v. | H l n l s t e r | f o r | Immiarati'on. | Local |
| m | m | 38 FCR 351, where Burchett J |
| exerc i sed | a | d i s c r e t i o n | a s | t o | c o s t s | i n | favour | of | an |
| unsuccessful a p p l i c a n t , | and | t h e | judgment | of | S t e i n J | i n pshlack |
| v. Pichmon | d | River | S h i r e C | o | u | n | c | e v | i | e | l | c | v | ! |
| ( 1 9 9 4 ) | 82 LGERA 236. | I t was | submitted by Mr Robinson |
| t h a t , | havini-'regard | t o | t h e | publ ic | i n t e r e s t , | t h e | f a c t | t h a t |
| t h e r e w a s | a | s e r i o u s | i s s u e t o be | tried | and | t h e | f a c t t h a t | the re |
| was | no | ques t ion of | personal | ga in t o t h e app l i can t i n bringing |
| h i s | a p p l i c a t i o n , | t h e | circumstances | a r e | such | t h a t | t h e | cos t s |
| order should be | t h a t each par ty bear i t s own | c o s t s . |
| On | 19 | August | t h e | respondents | made | wri t ten |
| submissions on t h e quest ion of | c o s t s , | i n which | it was |
| submitted | t h a t | t h e y | w e r e | e n t i t l e d | t o | an | o rde r | f o r | cos t s | i n |
| accordance wi th | t h e | general | r u l e t h a t | c o s t s - fo l low t h e | event. |
For the respondents it was submitted that the rule is normally followed even in matters of public interest where the result of an election for a constitutional assembly is the subject of deliberation, and reference was made to Cole v. Lacev (1965) 112 CLR 45; Evans v. Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169; Nile
v. Wood (1987) 167 CLR 133 and S ~ k e q v. Australian Electoral
Commissioq (1993) 115 ALR 641, in all of which cases an order for costs was made against the unsuccessful petitioner.
~t was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that there were no special circumstances in the present matter which warrant departure from the general rule.
Mr Robinson, on 17 August, had communicated with the Registrar by facsimile, in which he said, in part:
| " In | r e l a t i o n | to m y a t t e n d a n c e | on | the | 15th, | the |
| manner | i n which H i s Honour | had | a l r e a d y ordered |
| t h a t | I | p a y | the | r e s p o n d e n t s | costs | w i t h o u t |
| a l l o w i n g me | t o announce m y appearance | or | to |
| a d d r e s s | h i m | on | the | i s s u e , | i s | o f | c o n s i d e r a b l e |
| CO-n.cern. |
| I | am | o f the | v i e w t h a t | this a s p e c t o f the m a t t e r |
| w i l l not | be | d e a l t w i t h i m p a r t i a l l y . | H i s Honour |
| h a v i n g | a l r e a d y | ev idenced | a | p r e d i s p o s i t i o n | t o |
| award | costs | a g a i n s t me, | and | I | would | r e q u e s t |
| t h a t | the | t r a n s c r i p t | o f | proceed ings | and | m y |
| s u b m i s s i o n | a s | t o | costs | be | r e f e r r e d | t o | a n o t h e r |
| Judge | for | d e t e n n i n a t f on. | " |
On 22 August 1994, Mr Robinson made further submissions in response to the written submissions on behalf of the respondents.
I have considered all of the submissions concerning costs, including the request that the question of costs be referred to another judge for determination. I decline to accede to that request.
While it is true that there is no question of personal gain to Mr Robinson in bringing the application, from the whole of the material, in my opinion, this is a case where the ordinary order for costs should be made. I order that the applicant pay the respondentsf costs of proceedings No. QG 192 of 1993, to be taxed if not agreed. Whether the respondents pursue the order as to costs is a matter for them.
| I cer t i fy that t h i s , and the preceding three ( 3 ) pages are a t rue copy o f the reasons f o r | judgment | h e r e i n | o f | t h e |
Honourable Mr Just ice Spender.
Associate
Date: 30 August 1994