Goliath Portland Cement Co Limited v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2000] FCA 1329

Goliath Portland Cement Co Limited v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2000] FCA 1329

The omission to make an order in lieu of the costs order made by Heerey J was an oversight. The Court had jurisdiction under O 35 r 1 or O 35 r 7(3) of the Federal Court Rules to entertain the application, and after considering written submissions concluded that the costs of the proceedings before Heerey J should follow the outcome of the appeal because the Court's findings on the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and the Excise Act 1901 (Cth), applied to the facts found by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, did not warrant a differential order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal; Costs Application / Further Reasons for Judgment Varying Costs Order
Outcome
Order No 5 of the orders made on 22 August 2000 was varied to include the costs of the hearing before Heerey J of the appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Legal Topics
['slip Rule' 'variation of Costs Order' 'costs of Proceedings Before Primary Judge' 'federal Court Rules O 35 R 1' 'federal Court Rules O 35 R 7(3)']
['costs' 'customs and Excise' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['slip Rule' 'variation of Costs Order' 'costs of Proceedings Before Primary Judge' 'federal Court Rules O 35 R 1' 'federal Court Rules O 35 R 7(3)']

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal; Costs Application / Further Reasons for Judgment Varying Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the omission to make an order for costs of the proceedings before Heerey J should be rectified.' 'Whether costs of the proceedings before Heerey J should follow the outcome of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The omission to make an order in lieu of the costs order made by Heerey J was an oversight. The Court had jurisdiction under O 35 r 1 or O 35 r 7(3) of the Federal Court Rules to entertain the application, and after considering written submissions concluded that the costs of the proceedings before Heerey J should follow the outcome of the appeal because the Court's findings on the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) and the Excise Act 1901 (Cth), applied to the facts found by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, did not warrant a differential order.

Court Disposition

Order No 5 of the orders made on 22 August 2000 was varied to include the costs of the hearing before Heerey J of the appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Orders

  • ['Order No 5 of the orders made on 22 August 2000 be varied to add the following words at the end thereof: "…and of the hearing before Heerey J of the appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal."']