Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 813

Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 813

There was no sufficient reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, as the second respondent could have consented to relief and did not; thus, the second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs.

Parties
Applicant: Ian Cooper; First Respondent: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; Second Respondent: Coffs Harbour Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Order)
Outcome
Application for costs granted against second respondent.
Legal Topics
Costs, Disability Discrimination, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Discrimination Law Costs Disability Discrimination Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Cooper

Applicant

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

First Respondent

Coffs Harbour Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment (costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made against the respondents in exception to the usual rule that costs follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sufficient reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, as the second respondent could have consented to relief and did not; thus, the second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted against second respondent.

Orders

  • The second respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.