Mitchelson v Health Insurance Commission & Ors (No. 2) [2007] FCA 1396

Mitchelson v Health Insurance Commission & Ors (No. 2) [2007] FCA 1396

Due to the applicant's inadequately formulated Notice of Appeal, failure to amend within the ordered time, and resulting delay, the applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis, to be paid forthwith upon quantification, even though the proceeding is not concluded.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Mark Leslie Mitchelson; First Respondent: Health Insurance Commission; Second Respondent: Dr Geoffrey Hirst; Third Respondent: Dr Marcela Cox; Fourth Respondent: Dr Brian Morton; Fifth Respondent: Dr Nicolas Radford; Sixth Respondent: Dr William Meagher; Seventh Respondent: Ms Jane Phelan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Notice of Appeal/application for Order of Review / Costs Determination Following Respondents' Notice of Motion
Outcome
Costs order against the applicant
Legal Topics
Costs, Amendment of Pleadings, Federal Court Procedure
Practice and Procedure Costs Amendment of Pleadings Federal Court Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Mark Leslie Mitchelson

Applicant

Health Insurance Commission

First Respondent

Dr Geoffrey Hirst

Second Respondent

Dr Marcela Cox

Third Respondent

Dr Brian Morton

Fourth Respondent

Dr Nicolas Radford

Fifth Respondent

Dr William Meagher

Sixth Respondent

Ms Jane Phelan

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Appeal/application for Order of Review / Costs Determination Following Respondents' Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should pay respondents' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether costs should be payable forthwith despite the proceeding not being concluded

Ratio Decidendi

Due to the applicant's inadequately formulated Notice of Appeal, failure to amend within the ordered time, and resulting delay, the applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion on an indemnity basis, to be paid forthwith upon quantification, even though the proceeding is not concluded.

Court Disposition

Costs order against the applicant

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed by the respondents on 3 August 2007 on an indemnity basis.
  • The applicant is ordered pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules to pay the costs forthwith upon determination of the quantum, by taxation or agreement, notwithstanding that the proceeding is not concluded.