Johnson v Veterans' Review Board (No.2) [2003] FCA 39

Johnson v Veterans' Review Board (No.2) [2003] FCA 39

The respondents' late costs submissions caused the applicant no particular disadvantage and did not carry any automatic or statutory consequence, so there was no sufficient reason to depart from the normal rule as to costs in favour of the second respondent, which was the substantive opponent to the application. The first respondent, having appropriately not acted as a protagonist and having appeared only contingently on matters of powers and procedures, was not entitled to a separate costs order in addition to the second respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Application by Way of Appeal From Decision of Veterans' Review Board / Costs Following Dismissal of the Application
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the application; first respondent's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['costs Against Unsuccessful Applicant' 'costs of Tribunal or Primary Decision Maker' 'role of Tribunal in Proceedings' 'late Written Submissions as to Costs']
['costs' 'administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['costs Against Unsuccessful Applicant' 'costs of Tribunal or Primary Decision Maker' 'role of Tribunal in Proceedings' 'late Written Submissions as to Costs']

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

Application by Way of Appeal From Decision of Veterans' Review Board / Costs Following Dismissal of the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the usual rule as to costs should apply against the applicant after dismissal of the application.' "Whether the respondents' late filing of written submissions as to costs justified denying costs." 'Whether the first respondent, as the primary decision maker which did not act as the active protagonist, should recover its costs in addition to the second respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' late costs submissions caused the applicant no particular disadvantage and did not carry any automatic or statutory consequence, so there was no sufficient reason to depart from the normal rule as to costs in favour of the second respondent, which was the substantive opponent to the application. The first respondent, having appropriately not acted as a protagonist and having appeared only contingently on matters of powers and procedures, was not entitled to a separate costs order in addition to the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the application; first respondent's application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The applicant Keith Douglas Johnson pay the costs of the second respondent Repatriation Commission of the application.' 'The application for costs made by the first respondent against the applicant is refused.' 'Leave was given to the second respondent to apply by written notice to the applicant and the Court for...