Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1241

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 1241

The circumstances, including delay and the applicant's belief about costs, do not warrant departure from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party should pay costs; the respondent is entitled to costs of the application.

Parties
Applicant: Jure Jack Roncevich; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion for Costs Following Dismissal of Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Order for costs granted in favour of respondent
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals From Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Public Interest, Defence Service Definition
Administrative Law Costs Appeals From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Public Interest Defence Service Definition

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jure Jack Roncevich

Applicant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Costs Following Dismissal of Application / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made against the applicant following dismissal of the application
  2. 2 Whether delay or public interest warrants a departure from the usual costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstances, including delay and the applicant's belief about costs, do not warrant departure from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party should pay costs; the respondent is entitled to costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Order for costs granted in favour of respondent

Orders

  • The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application finalised by judgment given on 2 December 2002.