Robinson v Australian Electoral Commission - [1994] FCA 1119

JUDGMENT No, ..&LW7d / fPk

IN THE F E D E W COURT OF AUSTRALIq 1
DUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRX

1 No. QG 192 of 1993
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

commission 88 ALR 166 .

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…

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 Robinson v Australian Electoral Commission 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: [1994] FCA 1119
Decision Date: 30 Aug 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia was an application by John Richard Robinson against the Australian Electoral Commission and Stephen Brown. The dispute arose from an application by Mr Robinson seeking a declaration that the results of an election held for the constitutional assembly of the state of Queensland were invalid. The court was required to determine the appropriate costs order in the proceedings. The primary legal issue was whether the general rule of costs following the event should apply, or if there were special circumstances warranting a different order.

The court considered the submissions made by both parties on the question of costs. The applicant argued that given the public interest nature of the case, the serious issue to be tried, and the absence of personal gain, each party should bear its own costs. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the general rule of costs should apply, and they cited several cases where costs were awarded against unsuccessful applicants in matters of public interest. The court held that it was not persuaded by the applicant's arguments for a departure from the general rule. While acknowledging that the matter involved a public interest issue and that there was no personal gain to the applicant, the court concluded that the ordinary order for costs should be made.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings. The exact amount of costs was to be taxed if not agreed upon by the parties. The court rejected the applicant's request for the question of costs to be referred to another judge for determination. The court's decision was based on its assessment of the submissions and the circumstances of the case.

Orders