Sherman, Doctor John & Anor v Medicare Participation Review Committee & Anor [1996] FCA 1081

Sherman, Doctor John & Anor v Medicare Participation Review Committee & Anor [1996] FCA 1081

No costs order should be made in favour of the applicants because the proceeding was misconceived until leave to amend was granted during the hearing, and the Minister's advisers and legal representatives did not significantly add to the costs of the proceeding. The applicants should pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Costs Determination After Reasons Setting Aside the March 1993 Decision
Outcome
Applicants to pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding, with entry of the costs order deferred to allow written submissions seeking a different order.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'meaning of Decision' 'extension of Time' 'amendment of Application' 'costs of Proceeding']
['administrative Law' 'costs'] ['judicial Review' 'meaning of Decision' 'extension of Time' 'amendment of Application' 'costs of Proceeding']

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

Application for an Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Costs Determination After Reasons Setting Aside the March 1993 Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether either applicant should receive a costs order against the Minister' "Whether the applicants should pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding" "Whether the Minister's conduct added to the costs of the proceeding"]

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order should be made in favour of the applicants because the proceeding was misconceived until leave to amend was granted during the hearing, and the Minister's advisers and legal representatives did not significantly add to the costs of the proceeding. The applicants should pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding.

Court Disposition

Applicants to pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding, with entry of the costs order deferred to allow written submissions seeking a different order.

Orders

  • ["The applicants should pay the Minister's costs of the proceeding." 'The order concerning costs is not to be entered before 23 December 1996.' 'Any party may file a written submission in support of any different order concerning costs on or before 16 December 1996.']