Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Limited v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (No 2) [2025] FCA 34

Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Limited v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (No 2) [2025] FCA 34

The interveners' unsuccessful application to adduce evidence placed applicants to unnecessary cost, and the interveners did not intervene to protect their interests but to make a useful and different contribution; the justice of the situation required the interveners to pay the applicants' costs of opposing the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
First Applicant: Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Limited; Second Applicant: Zenia Chow; Third Applicant: Timothy Makeham; Respondent: Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency; First Intervener: Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons; Second Intervener: Timothy John Cameron Edwards
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment Determination on Papers
Outcome
Applicants' application for costs granted; interveners' application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Intervention, Federal Court Practice
Civil Procedure Costs Intervention Federal Court Practice

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Society of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Limited

First Applicant

Zenia Chow

Second Applicant

Timothy Makeham

Third Applicant

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency

Respondent

Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons

First Intervener

Timothy John Cameron Edwards

Second Intervener

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment Determination on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interveners should be liable for applicants' costs for the unsuccessful application to lead evidence
  2. 2 Whether intervention warranted an award of costs to the interveners

Ratio Decidendi

The interveners' unsuccessful application to adduce evidence placed applicants to unnecessary cost, and the interveners did not intervene to protect their interests but to make a useful and different contribution; the justice of the situation required the interveners to pay the applicants' costs of opposing the evidence application and preparation costs, with no order as to the interveners' own costs.

Court Disposition

Applicants' application for costs granted; interveners' application for costs refused.

Orders

  • The interveners are to pay the applicants' costs of opposing the interveners' application for leave to adduce evidence and thrown away by preparing to meet and challenge the evidence sought to be adduced by the interveners.
  • There be no order as to the interveners' costs.