Lawson v Gault [2002] FCAFC 308

Lawson v Gault [2002] FCAFC 308

A costs certificate was not appropriate because the respondent relied principally on the fact that the appeal succeeded on a point of law, which is not by itself sufficient, and any loss she suffered was brought about by the way her legal advisers conducted the matter, including the change from the position taken before the magistrate on the proper construction of s 99A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Appeal Costs Certificate Application / Application by the Respondent for a Costs Certificate After the Federal Court Upheld an Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and Remitted the Matter
Outcome
Application refused; no order as to the costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate' 'federal Appeal Succeeding on a Question of Law' 'discretion to Grant Costs Certificate' 'offences of Dishonesty Under the Crimes Act 1900 (act)']
['costs' 'appeals' 'criminal Law'] ['costs Certificate' 'federal Appeal Succeeding on a Question of Law' 'discretion to Grant Costs Certificate' 'offences of Dishonesty Under the Crimes Act 1900 (act)']

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

Federal Court Appeal Costs Certificate Application / Application by the Respondent for a Costs Certificate After the Federal Court Upheld an Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and Remitted the Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should certify under s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payment to the unsuccessful respondent in respect of her costs of the appeal.' "Whether the fact that the appeal was upheld on a point of law, together with the respondent's asserted need to incur further costs in the Supreme Court, justified granting a costs certificate."]

Ratio Decidendi

A costs certificate was not appropriate because the respondent relied principally on the fact that the appeal succeeded on a point of law, which is not by itself sufficient, and any loss she suffered was brought about by the way her legal advisers conducted the matter, including the change from the position taken before the magistrate on the proper construction of s 99A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Court Disposition

Application refused; no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The application be refused.' 'There be no order as to the costs of the appeal.']