Sharley v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2013] FCA 1232

Sharley v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2013] FCA 1232

Costs should be apportioned based on the distinct outcomes in respect of the applicant's unsuccessful claims regarding psychiatric conditions and the successful claims regarding osteoarthritis, with costs fixed proportionally to reflect these outcomes.

Parties
Applicant: John Douglas Sharley; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Orders as to costs made; applicant to pay respondent's costs as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Veterans' Entitlements, Appeal Procedure
Administrative Law Costs Veterans' Entitlements Appeal 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Douglas Sharley

Applicant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How costs should be awarded given the split outcomes regarding psychiatric condition claims and osteoarthritis of the knees claims.

Ratio Decidendi

Costs should be apportioned based on the distinct outcomes in respect of the applicant's unsuccessful claims regarding psychiatric conditions and the successful claims regarding osteoarthritis, with costs fixed proportionally to reflect these outcomes.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs made; applicant to pay respondent's costs as specified.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs incurred in connection with so much of the appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as related to the applicant's claims under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) in connection with alleged post traumatic stress disorder and generalised anxiety disorder.
  • The proportion of the respondent's costs of the hearing in this court on 3 September 2013 which are allowable under Order 1 above be fixed at 50%.