Tahmindjis, A.J. v Brown, B.R. & anor Cassimatis, N. v. Brown, B.R. & anor Moss, T.E. v Brown, B.R. & anor Castanos, J.N. v Brown, B.R. & anor Tahmindjis, A.J. & ors v Brown, B.R. & ors [1985] FCA 365

Tahmindjis, A.J. v Brown, B.R. & anor Cassimatis, N. v. Brown, B.R. & anor Moss, T.E. v Brown, B.R. & anor Castanos, J.N. v Brown, B.R. & anor Tahmindjis, A.J. & ors v Brown, B.R. & ors [1985] FCA 365

Because the invalidity of the committal orders arose from the magistrate's conduct, which affected his suitability to exercise substantive judgment in the particular cases, but it was unreasonable to expect the large proceedings to commence afresh, the most satisfactory course was to refer the matters to the magistrate with directions to discharge the applicants and, only with the parties' consent, deal with or facilitate orders for costs of the proceedings before him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Applications Concerning Orders for Committal and Referral Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Further Reasons for Orders After Further Argument; Orders Made on 30 July 1985
Outcome
The committal orders were set aside and the matters were referred to the first respondent to discharge the applicants, with provision for costs by consent; the second respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs in this Court, and there was no order as to the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review of Committal Orders' 'referral for Further Consideration' 'discharge of Defendants' 'costs of Local Court Proceedings' 'natural Justice']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ['judicial Review of Committal Orders' 'referral for Further Consideration' 'discharge of Defendants' 'costs of Local Court Proceedings' 'natural Justice']

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

Applications Concerning Orders for Committal and Referral Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Further Reasons for Orders After Further Argument; Orders Made on 30 July 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters should be remitted or referred to the magistrate after the committal orders were found invalid.' 'Whether the applicants should be discharged in respect of the information and charges before the magistrate.' "How costs of the proceedings before the magistrate should be addressed where the first respondent's conduct affected his suitability to deal with substantive matters."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the invalidity of the committal orders arose from the magistrate's conduct, which affected his suitability to exercise substantive judgment in the particular cases, but it was unreasonable to expect the large proceedings to commence afresh, the most satisfactory course was to refer the matters to the magistrate with directions to discharge the applicants and, only with the parties' consent, deal with or facilitate orders for costs of the proceedings before him.

Court Disposition

The committal orders were set aside and the matters were referred to the first respondent to discharge the applicants, with provision for costs by consent; the second respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs in this Court, and there was no order as to the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The order for committal the subject of these proceedings be set aside.' 'The matter be referred to the first respondent to discharge the applicant in respect of the information and charge or charges against him.' 'With the consent of the parties, the first respondent may make such order or orders for costs of the...