Honora Mary Pride v Ronald Patrick Hassell & ors [1984] FCA 452

Honora Mary Pride v Ronald Patrick Hassell & ors [1984] FCA 452

By majority, the appellant was given leave to discontinue the appeal and each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the appeal. Although there was no wrongful conduct by the Commonwealth, the subsequent Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984 produced circumstances in which the appeal had become virtually moot, and both parties had left it to a late stage to ascertain the consequences of the new legislation. The Court declined to interfere with costs reserved below, which could be addressed by the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Applications for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition / Application for Leave to Discontinue the Appeal and Determination of Costs
Outcome
Appeal discontinued by leave; each party to pay its own costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance of Appeal' 'costs Discretion' 'effect of Subsequent Legislation Rendering Appeal Virtually Moot' 'mandamus' 'prohibition' 'repatriation Review Tribunal']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'administrative Law'] ['discontinuance of Appeal' 'costs Discretion' 'effect of Subsequent Legislation Rendering Appeal Virtually Moot' 'mandamus' 'prohibition' 'repatriation Review Tribunal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Applications for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition / Application for Leave to Discontinue the Appeal and Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be given leave to discontinue the appeal.' 'Whether the appellant, despite discontinuing the appeal, should receive costs against the Commonwealth or whether each party should bear its own costs.' 'Whether the appeal court should deal with costs reserved by the trial judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appellant was given leave to discontinue the appeal and each party was ordered to pay its own costs of the appeal. Although there was no wrongful conduct by the Commonwealth, the subsequent Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984 produced circumstances in which the appeal had become virtually moot, and both parties had left it to a late stage to ascertain the consequences of the new legislation. The Court declined to interfere with costs reserved below, which could be addressed by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal discontinued by leave; each party to pay its own costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appellant be given leave to discontinue the appeal.' 'Each party pay his own costs of the appeal.']