Palmer v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2020] FCA 1220

Palmer v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2020] FCA 1220

The Commonwealth did not require leave to withdraw its intervention because there is no Federal Court Rules provision requiring an intervener to seek leave to withdraw, r 26.12 applies only to a party claiming relief, and the Commonwealth had not applied for any declaration or other remedy but had only intervened in support of the applicants and sought factual findings. Common law discontinuance principles did not apply because the Commonwealth was an intervener that had not claimed relief. In any event, a new hearing was not warranted because the respondents were not practically disadvantaged by the withdrawal after the hearing had concluded, the applicants adopted the Commonwealth's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure in Remitted Constitutional Proceeding / Case Management Hearing Concerning Whether the Commonwealth Intervener Required Leave to Withdraw and Whether a Rehearing Should Be Ordered
Outcome
The respondents' submission that the Commonwealth required leave to withdraw or discontinue its intervention was rejected; a further hearing of the evidence was refused; the Commonwealth was ordered to pay the parties' costs of and incidental to the hearing of 7 August 2020.
Legal Topics
['intervention' 'withdrawal of Intervener' 'discontinuance' 'remittal From High Court' 'costs' 'rehearing of Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'constitutional Law' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['intervention' 'withdrawal of Intervener' 'discontinuance' 'remittal From High Court' 'costs' 'rehearing of Evidence']

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

Practice and Procedure in Remitted Constitutional Proceeding / Case Management Hearing Concerning Whether the Commonwealth Intervener Required Leave to Withdraw and Whether a Rehearing Should Be Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia required leave to withdraw its intervention from the part of the High Court proceeding remitted to the Federal Court.' 'Whether r 26.12 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applied to the Commonwealth as a party claiming relief.' 'Whether common law discontinuance principles required the Commonwealth to obtain leave to withdraw.' 'Whether any leave to withdraw should be conditioned on a new hearing of evidence or withdrawal of submissions and claims for findings.' 'Whether the evidence adduced by the Commonwealth should be excluded or ignored.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth did not require leave to withdraw its intervention because there is no Federal Court Rules provision requiring an intervener to seek leave to withdraw, r 26.12 applies only to a party claiming relief, and the Commonwealth had not applied for any declaration or other remedy but had only intervened in support of the applicants and sought factual findings. Common law discontinuance principles did not apply because the Commonwealth was an intervener that had not claimed relief. In any event, a new hearing was not warranted because the respondents were not practically disadvantaged by the withdrawal after the hearing had concluded, the applicants adopted the Commonwealth's...

Court Disposition

The respondents' submission that the Commonwealth required leave to withdraw or discontinue its intervention was rejected; a further hearing of the evidence was refused; the Commonwealth was ordered to pay the parties' costs of and incidental to the hearing of 7 August 2020.

Orders

  • ["The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia pay the parties' costs of and incidental to the hearing of 7 August 2020." 'The applicants notify the Court and the respondents as to whether they apply for any order for costs against the respondents in respect of the hearing of 7 August 2020 by 4.30 pm on 26...