Goodricke v Comcare [2015] FCA 611

Goodricke v Comcare [2015] FCA 611

Although the interlocutory application was incompetent, the appropriate order was to reserve its costs pending the outcome of the substantive appeal because the incompetence was referable to Mr Goodricke being a litigant in person without skilled legal advice, the appeal appeared likely to affect the status of Comcare's 31 March 2015 decision, and the costs of the interlocutory application could properly be dealt with together with the costs of the substantive appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application Dismissed as Incompetent, Pending Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Costs reserved pending judgment in the substantive appeal in QUD 127/2015.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'competence of Interlocutory Application' 'appeal From Federal Circuit Court' 'compensation Payments']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'workers Compensation'] ['costs of Interlocutory Application' 'federal Court Costs Discretion' 'competence of Interlocutory Application' 'appeal From Federal Circuit Court' 'compensation Payments']

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 the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; Costs of Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination After Interlocutory Application Dismissed as Incompetent, Pending Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs of and incidental to the appellant's interlocutory application should be ordered in favour of the respondent or reserved pending judgment in the substantive appeal." 'Whether the interlocutory application was competent where it sought review of a respondent decision made after the Federal Circuit Court decision under appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the interlocutory application was incompetent, the appropriate order was to reserve its costs pending the outcome of the substantive appeal because the incompetence was referable to Mr Goodricke being a litigant in person without skilled legal advice, the appeal appeared likely to affect the status of Comcare's 31 March 2015 decision, and the costs of the interlocutory application could properly be dealt with together with the costs of the substantive appeal.

Court Disposition

Costs reserved pending judgment in the substantive appeal in QUD 127/2015.

Orders

  • ['Costs be reserved pending judgment in the substantive appeal in QUD 127/2015.']