Ogawa v Attorney General [2018] FCA 498

Ogawa v Attorney General [2018] FCA 498

Because the Attorney-General had made a recommendation decision in respect of Dr Ogawa's petition, any public duty to deal with the petition had been performed and mandamus would no longer have utility. No costs order was warranted because no filing fee had been incurred, the setting down fee was not payable, and Dr Ogawa's 4 April 2018 attendance was unnecessary once she had been advised that the decision had been made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for a Writ of Mandamus / Application Dismissed After the Attorney General Made a Recommendation Decision Before Substantive Hearing; Costs Determined
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['mandamus' 'royal Prerogative of Mercy' 'petition for Mercy or Reference to the Queensland Court of Appeal' 'judicial Review Jurisdiction' 'costs for Self Represented Litigants' 'overarching Duty']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'civil Procedure and Costs'] ['mandamus' 'royal Prerogative of Mercy' 'petition for Mercy or Reference to the Queensland Court of Appeal' 'judicial Review Jurisdiction' 'costs for Self Represented Litigants' 'overarching Duty']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Application for a Writ of Mandamus / Application Dismissed After the Attorney General Made a Recommendation Decision Before Substantive Hearing; Costs Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application for mandamus retained utility after the Attorney-General signed a departmental submission and made a recommendation to the Governor-General in respect of Dr Ogawa's petition." 'Whether Dr Ogawa, as a self-represented litigant, should receive a costs order or any allowance for fees or travel expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Attorney-General had made a recommendation decision in respect of Dr Ogawa's petition, any public duty to deal with the petition had been performed and mandamus would no longer have utility. No costs order was warranted because no filing fee had been incurred, the setting down fee was not payable, and Dr Ogawa's 4 April 2018 attendance was unnecessary once she had been advised that the decision had been made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']