Falcetta v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 194

Falcetta v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 194

Although Mr Falcetta's appeal had been allowed in part, it succeeded only to the extent of $1020, an amount conceded by the Commissioner as arising from calculation errors by the primary judge; the Court's true impression was that Mr Falcetta was unsuccessful, so he should pay the Commissioner's costs of the appeal while the Commissioner should pay his costs of the cross-appeal. In the Bartlett proceeding, the agreed and appropriate course was for the Commissioner to pay Mr Bartlett's costs of the cross-appeal and for there to be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeals From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Determination After Reasons Published on 10 May 2004
Outcome
Costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Cross Appeal' 'partial Success on Appeal' 'discontinued Appeal']
['appellate Procedure' 'costs' 'taxation'] ['costs of Appeal' 'costs of Cross Appeal' 'partial Success on Appeal' 'discontinued Appeal']

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 and Cross Appeals From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Costs Determination After Reasons Published on 10 May 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What costs orders should be made in the Falcetta proceeding after the appeal was allowed in part and the Commissioner's cross-appeal was dismissed." 'What costs orders should be made in the Bartlett proceeding after the cross-appeal was dismissed and the appeal had been discontinued.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Falcetta's appeal had been allowed in part, it succeeded only to the extent of $1020, an amount conceded by the Commissioner as arising from calculation errors by the primary judge; the Court's true impression was that Mr Falcetta was unsuccessful, so he should pay the Commissioner's costs of the appeal while the Commissioner should pay his costs of the cross-appeal. In the Bartlett proceeding, the agreed and appropriate course was for the Commissioner to pay Mr Bartlett's costs of the cross-appeal and for there to be no order as to the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['In N1797 of 2003, the Commissioner pay the costs of Mr Falcetta in relation to the cross-appeal.' 'In N1797 of 2003, Mr Falcetta pay the costs of the Commissioner of the appeal.' 'In N1798 of 2003, the Commissioner pay the costs of Mr Bartlett of the cross-appeal.' 'In N1798 of 2003, there be no order as to costs...