Comcare Australia v Amorebieta, F.X. [1995] FCA 47

Comcare Australia v Amorebieta, F.X. [1995] FCA 47

A stay was appropriate because there was no proffering of security and no suggestion that the respondent had actually paid the costs, was out of pocket, and was awaiting reimbursement; in this type of litigation costs are usually paid when everything is wound up.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Application
Outcome
Stay granted; costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Order of Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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

Application for Stay Pending Appeal / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment on Application

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal order requiring the applicant to pay the respondent's costs should be stayed pending determination of the matter by the court."]

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was appropriate because there was no proffering of security and no suggestion that the respondent had actually paid the costs, was out of pocket, and was awaiting reimbursement; in this type of litigation costs are usually paid when everything is wound up.

Court Disposition

Stay granted; costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • ["The order of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 22 September 1994 that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding and the tribunal incurred by the respondent in accordance with the tribunal's practice direction dated 20 June 1993 be stayed pending the determination of this matter by the court;" 'The...