Davidson v Fesl (No 2) [2005] FCAFC 274

Davidson v Fesl (No 2) [2005] FCAFC 274

Given that the motion for leave to appeal was without merit and served no practical purpose, and there was no demonstrable benefit to indigenous interests, the applicants should pay the costs of the first and second respondents, notwithstanding s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to Appeal (costs) / Decision on Costs Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Costs order; applicants to pay costs of first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['native Title' 'costs Discretion' 'federal Court Procedure']
['aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['native Title' 'costs Discretion' 'federal Court Procedure']

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

Motion for Leave to Appeal (costs) / Decision on Costs Following Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to respondents notwithstanding s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) when a motion for leave to appeal is dismissed as lacking merit and serving no practical purpose']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the motion for leave to appeal was without merit and served no practical purpose, and there was no demonstrable benefit to indigenous interests, the applicants should pay the costs of the first and second respondents, notwithstanding s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Costs order; applicants to pay costs of first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants pay the First and Second Respondents' costs of the motion for leave to appeal against the decision of Spender J given on 22 February 2005."]