Telecasters North Queensland Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

[1983] FCA 377

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

9UEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	QLD G45 of 1983
GENrmAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:

TELECASTERS NORTH OUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

and NORTH QUEENSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Respondent

QLD G97 of 1983

BETWEEN:

TELECASTERS NORTH QUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

AND:

CATHARINE WEIGALL

Second Respondent

AND:

JAMES WILKINSON

Third Respondent

AND :

NORTH QUEENSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

2.

DATE OF Em-:

8 DECEMBER 1983

DATE JUDGMENTS DELIVERD:

22 NOVEMBER & 8 DECEMBER 1983

COUNSEL :

. f o r the applicant

Mr Hampson Q.C.

with him

Mr Russell

instructed by

Messrs Stephen Jaques Stone

James by their Town Agents

Messrs Willlams and Wllllams

. for the Australian Broadcasting Mr Slattery

instructed Tribune.1: by

Commonwealth Crown Solicitor

. for North Queensland Portfolio Mr Nicholas Q.C.

with him Ltd Pty

MY Sackar

instructed by

Messrs Baker, Hartley and	CO
by their Town Agents

Messrs Walsh Fitzgerald and

Halligan

J.L. DAVISON

8 DECEMBER 1983 ASSOCIATE TO FITZGERALD J.

IN THE FTXlEXAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
) QLD G45 of 1983
PUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN :

TELECASTERS NORTH OUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND :

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

and NORTH OUEENSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Respondent

QLD G97 of 1983

BETMEEN :

TELECASTEX3 NORTH OUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

AND:

CATHARINE GIEIGALL

Second Respondent

AND :

JAMES WILKINSON

Third Respondent

AND:

NORTH OUEENSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	FITZGERALD J.
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 1983
1 WHERE MADE:	BRISBAME

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. There be no further order as to costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	) QLD G45 of 1983
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BEJlwEEN:

TELECASTERS NCRTH OUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AID:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

and NORTH OUEFNSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Respondent

QLD G97 of 1983

BEIWEEN :

TELECASTERS NORTH OUEENSLAND LIMITED

Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

m:

CATHARINE kEIGALL

Second Respondent

AND :

JAMES WILICCNSON

Third Respondent

AND :

NORTH OUEENSLAND PORTFOLIO PTY LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

E-

$

C .

2 .

l

, .

FITZGER ,ALD J. a DECEMBER 1983

I .

i

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Three applications, Numbers G45, 97 and 99 of 1983, were ' ,

commenced by Telecasters North Queensland Limited agalnst Morth

Queensland Portfolio Pty Limited and the Australian Broadcasting

Tribunal or members of the Tribunal under the Administrative

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. All three applications have now

been dismissed, and some orders as to costs have been made. but,

with respect to other costs, they were previously reserved. The

partles have now made submissions concerning the disposal of

those questions of costs.

Telecasters and Portfolio are partles in proceedings

before the Tribunal. They have been involved in tactical

manoeuvres before the Tribunal which have now been settled.

Neither side has now maintamed or sought to maintain In practice

as dlstinct from its submissions its previous extreme positions.

So far as concerns Application G97 the merlts are not

really discernible from the respective affidavits and limited

submissions. The only question as to coats arises as between

Telecasters and Portfolio. No costs are asked f o r by or agalnst

the Tribunal. Telecasters does not ask for costs. Portfolio has

already been awarded the bulk of the costs by previous order but

$seeks an order against Telecasters for remaining costs. Q

3 .

1 1

Application G45 1s a little more difficult. Tine 1

Tribunal is involved. Telecasters ask for costs against either

Portfolio or the Tribunal. Although the Tribunal vas faced with

a difficult situation, it would probably have been better advised

to stay its hand to permit the applicatlon to be made to the

Court. Nonetheless I have little doubt but that the costs should

be adjusted between the parties and no order ought be made

against the Tribunal which does not ask for costs. Portfolio

urged the Tribunal to proceed, at least initially. In the end,

after the Court was approached, the skirmish in the Tribunal was

temporarily postponed and then the Tribunal adjourned.

By today's standards, the costs Involved are relatively

small and unlikely to be of particular consequence to either

Telecasters or	Portfolio except by way of providing a degree of
satisfaction.

Overall, in my opinion, broad justice will best be

served by no further order	as	to costs and the Court orders
accordingly.

d certlfy that thls and the 4 pre-rc.I.,lg

pages are a true copy of the rezsons for

judgment herem of His Honour

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald

L . Z J w 4 n , A s s o c l a t e

Dated / P ~ C L G W W A Y , 7 7 ~ -