FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shafran v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2020] FCA 1072
File number: QUD 424 of 2019 Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 28 July 2020 Catchwords: COSTS – where there was a wider public interest to be served by the application – where the first respondent had a particular interest in the correction of imperfect understandings of the relevant legislation – whether each party should bear its own costs or, alternatively, whether costs in favour of the applicant should be fixed or awarded on a percentage basis Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 147, 183, 184
Cases cited: Belton v General Motors Holden's Ltd (No 1) (1984) 58 ALJR 352
Cocoa Cola Amatil (PNG) Ltd v Yanda [2012] PGSC 52
Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Shafran v Repatriation Commission [2019] FCA 1833
Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (unreported, Burchett J, 20 July 1998)
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions filed by the Applicant: 11 November 2019 Date of last submissions filed by the First Respondent: 13 November 2019 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 37 Solicitor for the Applicant: IAMCU Legal Pty Ltd Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms E Longbottom Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
QUD 424 of 2019 BETWEEN: GEOFFREY SHAFRAN
Applicant
AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
First Respondent
VETERANS’ REVIEW BOARD
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 JULY 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, if any, of and incidental to the proceeding on and from the filing on 30 August 2019 of the amended originating application (including those relating to the preparation, filing and service of that amended application), including the costs of and incidental to the costs of the application for costs pursuant to the Court’s order of 8 November 2019, to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed.
2.Save as aforesaid and without prejudice to the costs order made on 29 July 2019, there be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOGAN J:
On 8 November 2019, I made orders disposing of the substantive issues in judicial review proceedings instituted by a veteran, Mr Geoffrey Shafran against the Repatriation Commission (Commission) and the Veterans’ Review Board (Board). I reserved for later application and related submissions in writing any questions relating to the costs of the proceedings. These reasons for judgment must be read in conjunction…
Continue reading Shafran v Repatriation Commission (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Shafran v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2020] FCA 1072
- Case
- [2020] FCA 1072
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the costs incurred by the applicant in pursuing the amended originating application should be borne by the first respondent. The Court considered the broader public interest in ensuring accurate understandings of relevant legislation and the particular interest of the first respondent in the correction of any imperfect understandings. The applicant argued for a costs order in their favour, while the first respondent contended that each party should bear its own costs.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted the importance of the public interest in ensuring correct interpretations of legislation and the specific interest of the first respondent in correcting any misunderstandings. The Court held that the first respondent should bear the applicant’s costs, including those related to the preparation, filing, and service of the amended originating application. The Court also considered the potential impact on the broader public interest and the first respondent's particular interest in the matter.
The orders made by the Court were that the first respondent would pay the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, of and incidental to the proceeding on and from the filing of the amended originating application. The costs were to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed upon by the parties. The Court also clarified that, except as specified, there would be no order as to costs. This decision was made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs, including reserved costs, if any, of and incidental to the proceeding on and from the filing on 30 August 2019 of the amended originating application (including those relating to the preparation, filing and service of that amended application), including the costs of and incidental to the costs of the application for costs pursuant to the Court’s order of 8 November 2019, to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed.
2. Save as aforesaid and without prejudice to the costs order made on 29 July 2019, there be no order as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.