Vata-Meyer v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 167

Vata-Meyer v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 167

The Federal Court declined to vary the order that the respondents pay Ms Vata-Meyer's costs of the appeal because it lacked the power to remit the determination of those costs to the Federal Circuit Court and, having regard to established principles and case law, the circumstances did not warrant departing from the usual order that costs follow the event.

Parties
Appellant: Edna Vata-Meyer; First Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: Angus Lee; Third Respondent: Lisa Paul; Fourth Respondent: Margaret Leggett; Fifth Respondent: Ben Wyers; Sixth Respondent: Vicki Rundle; Seventh Respondent: James Halligan; Eighth Respondent: Jennifer Roylance
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Remittal on Appeal
Outcome
Respondents' application to vary the previous costs order dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Calderbank Offers, Appeals, Discretion as to Costs
Practice and Procedure Costs Calderbank Offers Appeals Discretion as to Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edna Vata-Meyer

Appellant

Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

Angus Lee

Second Respondent

Lisa Paul

Third Respondent

Margaret Leggett

Fourth Respondent

Ben Wyers

Fifth Respondent

Vicki Rundle

Sixth Respondent

James Halligan

Seventh Respondent

Jennifer Roylance

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Remittal on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of appeal should be determined by the Federal Circuit Court on retrial or remain with the Federal Court
  2. 2 Scope of the Federal Court's power to allocate costs determination to another court
  3. 3 Impact of Calderbank offer on costs orders after appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court declined to vary the order that the respondents pay Ms Vata-Meyer's costs of the appeal because it lacked the power to remit the determination of those costs to the Federal Circuit Court and, having regard to established principles and case law, the circumstances did not warrant departing from the usual order that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to vary the previous costs order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application by the first and second respondents to vary the order made on 22 September 2015 that they pay the appellant's costs of the appeal be dismissed with costs.