Norouzi v The Director of the Professional Services Review Agency (No 2) [2020] FCA 1600
Given Dr Norouzi's success only against the third respondent, but accounting for the necessary overlap in preparatory work encompassing both the committee and the Determining Authority, the just course is to award two thirds of the applicant's costs against the third respondent to reflect the real extent of success and necessary work.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Costs Determination Post Judgment
- Outcome
- Third respondent to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'judicial Review' 'health Insurance Act']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Determination Post Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Appropriate order for costs following judicial review proceedings where success against only one respondent' "Whether correspondence constituted a 'Calderbank letter' and its impact on costs"]
Ratio Decidendi
Given Dr Norouzi's success only against the third respondent, but accounting for the necessary overlap in preparatory work encompassing both the committee and the Determining Authority, the just course is to award two thirds of the applicant's costs against the third respondent to reflect the real extent of success and necessary work.
Court Disposition
Third respondent to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding
Orders
- ["The third respondent pay two thirds of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be fixed by a Registrar if not agreed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment