Rushton v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1049

Rushton v Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (No 2) [2020] FCA 1049

The first respondent's approach of seeking multiple alternative forms of relief, prevailing only in one, combined with its failure to provide all relevant materials, did not justify a favourable costs order. Therefore, there should be no variation to the previous order as to costs.

Parties
Applicant: Ben Anthony Rushton; First Respondent: Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, ABN 48 882 817 243; Second Respondent: Mark Desmond Kaney as litigation guardian for Kane Anthony Rushton, Jye Luke Rushton and Brydie Maree Rushton; Third Respondent: The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, ABN 38 620 595 340
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (costs) / Post Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Exercise of Discretion, Model Litigant Obligations
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Costs Exercise of Discretion Model Litigant Obligations

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Anthony Rushton

Applicant

Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, ABN 48 882 817 243

First Respondent

Mark Desmond Kaney as litigation guardian for Kane Anthony Rushton, Jye Luke Rushton and Brydie Maree Rushton

Second Respondent

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, ABN 38 620 595 340

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (costs) / Post Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should an order as to costs be made following the first respondent's notice of objection to competency and interlocutory application?

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent's approach of seeking multiple alternative forms of relief, prevailing only in one, combined with its failure to provide all relevant materials, did not justify a favourable costs order. Therefore, there should be no variation to the previous order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs.