Sydney Local Health Network v QY and QZ (No 2)

[2012] NSWCA 71

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:

Sydney Local Health Network v QY and QZ (No 2)

Medium Neutral Citation:

[2012] NSWCA 71

Hearing Date(s):

On the papers

Decision Date:

05 April 2012

Jurisdiction:

Before:

Campbell JA at [1];  Macfarlan JA at [1];  Young JA at [1]

Decision:

Order that the respondents be granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 in respect of the costs of the appeal including the costs of the motion of 23 December 2011.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 387; 68 NSWLR 366

Texts Cited:

Category:

Consequential orders

Parties:

Sydney Local Health Network (formerly Sydney South West Area Health Service) (Appellant)
QY (First Respondent)
QZ (Second Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:

Counsel:

Dr M A Perry QC and L A Clegg (Appellant)
Dr C S Ward and S J Walsh (Respondents)

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:

GILD Insurance Litigation Pty Ltd (Appellant)
HIV/AIDS Legal Centre Incorporated (Respondents)

File number(s):

CA 2010/244324

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

- Before:

K P O'Connor DCJ (P);  D Patten (DP);  B Field

- Date of Decision:

29 June 2010

- Citation:

QY & QZ v Sydney South West Area Health Service (EOD) [2010] NSWADTAP 48

- Court File Number(s)

ADTAP 109003

Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: We gave judgment in this appeal late last year [2011] NSWCA 412.

2. The respondents have filed a notice of motion on 23 December 2011 seeking a further order that they be granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.

3. The Court gave directions that the motion be considered on the papers and sought submissions from the parties.

4. These submissions showed that there was no opposition to the order being made.

5. The order sought is one that ordinarily would be made.

6. As was pointed out by Basten JA (with whom Handley JA and McDougall J agreed) in Trust Company of Australia Ltd v Skiwing Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSCA 387; 68 NSWLR 366 at 385 [74] for the purposes of the Suitors Fund Act, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal is classed as a court.

7. Accordingly the Court orders that the respondents be granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 in respect of the costs of the appeal including the costs of the motion of 23 December 2011.

   **************************