De Domenico v Marshall [2001] FCA 135
The Federal Court had no authority to grant the costs certificate because the remitted proceedings were to be in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an administrative process, and "a new trial in a cause" in s 8(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) does not include such proceedings.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 02 March 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Application for a Costs Certificate Under S 8 of the Federal Proceedings (costs) Act 1981 (cth) Following a Successful Federal Court Appeal / Determination of Application for Costs Certificate
- Outcome
- Application refused.
- Legal Topics
- ['costs Certificate' 'federal Appeal' 'new Trial in a Cause' 'remittal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'administrative Proceedings']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for a Costs Certificate Under S 8 of the Federal Proceedings (costs) Act 1981 (cth) Following a Successful Federal Court Appeal / Determination of Application for Costs Certificate
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had power under s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) to grant a costs certificate where the successful appeal resulted in remittal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration and determination in accordance with law.' 'Whether the phrase "a new trial in a cause" in s 8(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) includes a hearing in an administrative process.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court had no authority to grant the costs certificate because the remitted proceedings were to be in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an administrative process, and "a new trial in a cause" in s 8(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) does not include such proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application refused.
Orders
- ['The application for a certificate under s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) is refused.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment