Maher v Commonwealth Banking Corporation [2002] FCAFC 217

Maher v Commonwealth Banking Corporation [2002] FCAFC 217

The Court would not make an Order 80 order because management of the proceedings was for the primary judge as docket judge. There would be no order as to costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal because Mr Maher had not identified real recoverable costs, his notice of appeal did not comply with the rules and caused the respondents to argue the matter at large, and an important point concerning tenancy at sufferance was not raised by him below or on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Determination of Outstanding Issues Concerning Order 80 and Costs After Orders Made on 16 April 2002
Outcome
No order as to costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['federal Court Rules Order 80' 'case Management by Docket Judge' 'costs of Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'costs'] ['federal Court Rules Order 80' 'case Management by Docket Judge' 'costs of Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant Costs']

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 From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Determination of Outstanding Issues Concerning Order 80 and Costs After Orders Made on 16 April 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make an order under Order 80 concerning the further conduct of the proceedings before the primary judge.' 'Whether Mr Maher should receive costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court would not make an Order 80 order because management of the proceedings was for the primary judge as docket judge. There would be no order as to costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal because Mr Maher had not identified real recoverable costs, his notice of appeal did not comply with the rules and caused the respondents to argue the matter at large, and an important point concerning tenancy at sufferance was not raised by him below or on appeal.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.']