P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1089

P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1089

The interlocutory application was dismissed because it was doubtful that a single judge had power to order that the matter be listed before the Full Court, any such direction being a matter for the Chief Justice under subsection 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and in any event the matter was not of sufficient importance to warrant a Full Court. There was no basis to conclude that the first respondent would challenge Buchanan J's earlier judgment, and any obiter observations by Buchanan J could be addressed before a single judge. Costs were ordered because the applicant had no proper basis for the application and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975(cth) / Interlocutory Application to Have the Appeal Heard by the Full Court and to Vacate the Current Hearing Date
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; hearing date of 28 October 2013 confirmed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'full Court Hearing' 'original Jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'costs Against Litigant in Person']
['administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'child Support'] ['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'full Court Hearing' 'original Jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'costs Against Litigant in Person']

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 From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Under Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975(cth) / Interlocutory Application to Have the Appeal Heard by the Full Court and to Vacate the Current Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal should be listed for hearing before the Full Court rather than a single judge' 'Whether the matter was of sufficient importance to justify a direction under subsection 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)' 'Whether the first respondent proposed to question the correctness of the earlier judgment of Buchanan J' 'Whether costs should be ordered against an unrepresented and allegedly impecunious applicant whose interlocutory application was dismissed']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory application was dismissed because it was doubtful that a single judge had power to order that the matter be listed before the Full Court, any such direction being a matter for the Chief Justice under subsection 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and in any event the matter was not of sufficient importance to warrant a Full Court. There was no basis to conclude that the first respondent would challenge Buchanan J's earlier judgment, and any obiter observations by Buchanan J could be addressed before a single judge. Costs were ordered because the applicant had no proper basis for the application and there was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; hearing date of 28 October 2013 confirmed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application."]