Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission (No 2) [2014] FCA 917

Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission (No 2) [2014] FCA 917

The application to vary, set aside or stay the costs order did not fall within the prescribed circumstances of rule 39.05; no special or exceptional circumstances justifying a stay were established, and consent to the taxation order was determinative.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment/interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['costs' 'stay of Execution' 'variation/set Aside of Orders' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'bankruptcy Notice']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'stay of Execution' 'variation/set Aside of Orders' 'appellate Jurisdiction' 'bankruptcy Notice']

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

Appeal / Post Judgment/interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does a single judge have power to vary or set aside a costs order made by a Full Court?' "Are there 'special or exceptional circumstances' justifying a stay of execution of the Full Court's costs order?" 'Is the consent taxation order vitiated by any circumstances?']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary, set aside or stay the costs order did not fall within the prescribed circumstances of rule 39.05; no special or exceptional circumstances justifying a stay were established, and consent to the taxation order was determinative.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed in the appeal on 18 June 2014 be dismissed.' 'No separate costs order made in this proceeding.']