Little v Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 2) [2024] FCA 841

Little v Wajarri Yamaji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (No 2) [2024] FCA 841

Because Mr Little's application was misconceived, had no prospects of success, and put the respondents to costs they should not have incurred, it was just that he pay the first respondent's costs. The proceeding was at least instituted without reasonable cause, and $5,278 was a reasonable fixed amount by analogy with item 15.1 of Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Native Title Tribunal Decision Under S 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) / Costs Determination After Summary Dismissal, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
The first respondent's costs application was granted against the first appellant.
Legal Topics
['costs Under S 85 a of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'appeal Under S 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'summary Dismissal' 'fixed Costs']
['native Title' 'costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['costs Under S 85 a of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'appeal Under S 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'summary Dismissal' 'fixed Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Native Title Tribunal Decision Under S 169 of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth) / Costs Determination After Summary Dismissal, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applied when determining costs in relation to the s 169 appeal.' "Whether the first appellant should be ordered to pay the first respondent's costs despite the starting point that each party bears its own costs." 'Whether the proceeding was instituted without reasonable cause.' "Whether $5,278 was a reasonable fixed amount for the first respondent's costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Little's application was misconceived, had no prospects of success, and put the respondents to costs they should not have incurred, it was just that he pay the first respondent's costs. The proceeding was at least instituted without reasonable cause, and $5,278 was a reasonable fixed amount by analogy with item 15.1 of Schedule 3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Court Disposition

The first respondent's costs application was granted against the first appellant.

Orders

  • ["The first appellant must pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, fixed in the sum of $5,278."]