Autistic Association of New South Wales v Dodson [1999] FCA 852

Autistic Association of New South Wales v Dodson [1999] FCA 852

It would be an improper exercise of the power to vary a judgment merely because the appellant failed to refer to particular authorities. In any event, Shackley did not address the relevant issue and the Court's earlier costs order was consistent with McJannet: because the Act provided no right enforceable in this...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Motion in an Appeal / Motion Under O 35 R 7 of the Federal Court Rules to Vary a Costs Order Before Judgment Had Been Entered, After the Appeal Had Been Dismissed as Incompetent
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['variation of Judgment Before Entry' 'incompetent Proceedings' 'costs Orders' 'matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 's 75(v) of the Constitution']
['practice and Procedure' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'workplace Relations' 'costs'] ['variation of Judgment Before Entry' 'incompetent Proceedings' 'costs Orders' 'matter Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 's 75(v) of the Constitution']

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

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Motion in an Appeal / Motion Under O 35 R 7 of the Federal Court Rules to Vary a Costs Order Before Judgment Had Been Entered, After the Appeal Had Been Dismissed as Incompetent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should exercise power to vary a costs order before judgment had been entered because the appellant had failed to cite authorities.' 'Whether a costs order in an incompetent proceeding in which the Court had no jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) is an order in a proceeding in a matter arising under that Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

It would be an improper exercise of the power to vary a judgment merely because the appellant failed to refer to particular authorities. In any event, Shackley did not address the relevant issue and the Court's earlier costs order was consistent with McJannet: because the Act provided no right enforceable in this Court and no power to determine such a right, the incompetent proceedings were not proceedings in a matter arising under the Act for s 347, and the Court had power as a superior court of record to make a costs order to protect the management of its business from incompetent proceedings.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion be dismissed.']