O'Mara v Harris [1948] HCA 18

O'Mara v Harris [1948] HCA 18

The Supreme Court had no power to award costs in an appeal under the regulations because reg. 75 prohibits an order for costs; however, the High Court's power to award costs is sourced from the Judiciary Act, not the regulations.

Parties
Applicant; Appellant: James Andrew O'Mara; Respondent: Dorothy Harris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Special Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Female Dependant Protection
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Costs Special Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Female Dependant Protection

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Andrew O'Mara

Applicant; Appellant

Dorothy Harris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Western Australia had power to award costs in an appeal under the National Security (Landlord and Tenant) Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has power to award costs on an application for special leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court had no power to award costs in an appeal under the regulations because reg. 75 prohibits an order for costs; however, the High Court's power to award costs is sourced from the Judiciary Act, not the regulations.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed as to costs

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court varied by striking out the provision as to costs.
  • No order as to costs of the application for special leave to appeal.