Stuart v Sanderson [2000] FCA 1240

Stuart v Sanderson [2000] FCA 1240

The respondents are to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, as the applicant won on the principal issue but delay and lack of timely attention partially justified the apportionment.

Parties
Applicant: Diana Bettina Stuart; First Respondent: Lieutenant General Sanderson (acting as Chief of General Staff); Second Respondent: Chief of the Army
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Order
Outcome
respondents ordered to pay two-thirds of applicant's costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Exercise of Discretion, Procedural Delay
Administrative Law Costs Exercise of Discretion Procedural Delay

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Bettina Stuart

Applicant

Lieutenant General Sanderson (acting as Chief of General Staff)

First Respondent

Chief of the Army

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned given the applicant's partial success and delay

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents are to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, as the applicant won on the principal issue but delay and lack of timely attention partially justified the apportionment.

Court Disposition

respondents ordered to pay two-thirds of applicant's costs

Orders

  • The respondents should pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs.