Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2021] FCA 677

Matson v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2021] FCA 677

The applicant failed on all grounds and showed no sufficient reason or special circumstances for the Court to depart from the usual principle that costs follow the event; consequently, the order requiring the applicant to pay the first and second respondents’ costs was confirmed.

Parties
Applicant: Baron Phillip Matson; First Respondent: The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia; Third Respondent: The President of the United States of America The Honourable Donald J Trump; Fourth Respondent: The Attorney-General of the United States of America The Honourable William P Barr; Fifth Respondent: The United States of America
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs)
Outcome
Applicant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents; earlier costs order confirmed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Discretion to Award Costs, Impecuniosity and Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Discretion to Award Costs Impecuniosity and Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baron Phillip Matson

Applicant

The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

The Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

The President of the United States of America The Honourable Donald J Trump

Third Respondent

The Attorney-General of the United States of America The Honourable William P Barr

Fourth Respondent

The United States of America

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impecuniosity of the unsuccessful applicant is sufficient to deny the successful parties their costs
  2. 2 Whether any special circumstances justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed on all grounds and showed no sufficient reason or special circumstances for the Court to depart from the usual principle that costs follow the event; consequently, the order requiring the applicant to pay the first and second respondents’ costs was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay the costs of the first and second respondents; earlier costs order confirmed.

Orders

  • Order No 5 made on 3 March 2021 requiring the Applicant to pay the costs of the First and Second Respondents of and incidental to the proceedings is confirmed.