Fisse v Secretary, Department of the Treasury (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 200

Fisse v Secretary, Department of the Treasury (No 2) [2008] FCAFC 200

No variation of the costs order is appropriate as the applicant was informed of the respondent's request for costs, made no submission at the appropriate stage, and no exceptional public interest or statutory consideration warranted departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs Order
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order dismissed; no variation of the 11 December 2008 order.
Legal Topics
['costs in Appeals From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'freedom of Information Act Exemptions' 'public Interest Litigation']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['costs in Appeals From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'freedom of Information Act Exemptions' 'public Interest Litigation']

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

Appeal / Post Judgment Application for Variation of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs order made upon dismissal of appeal should be varied so each party bears its own costs' 'Whether public interest or statutory considerations warrant a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event']

Ratio Decidendi

No variation of the costs order is appropriate as the applicant was informed of the respondent's request for costs, made no submission at the appropriate stage, and no exceptional public interest or statutory consideration warranted departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order dismissed; no variation of the 11 December 2008 order.

Orders

  • ['There be no variation of the order as made on 11 December 2008.' 'The Applicant is to pay such further costs as have been incurred by the First Respondent by reason of the making of further submissions as to costs.']