Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 930

Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 930

Although the substantive proceeding was a Federal appeal that succeeded on a question of law, the Court was not satisfied that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payment of the respondent's costs. The respondent's war veteran status and financial circumstances did not justify treating costs certificates as an alternative to legal aid, each application had to be assessed on its merits, and the appeal succeeded by applying well-established legal principles rather than on a new or novel point of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for a Costs Certificate Under S 6 of the Federal Proceedings (costs) Act 1981 (cth) / In Chambers After the Substantive Federal Appeal Succeeded on a Question of Law
Outcome
The application for the grant of a costs certificate under s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) failed.
Legal Topics
['costs Certificate' 'federal Appeal on a Question of Law' 'legal Aid' "war Veterans' Special Contribution" 'discretion to Grant Costs Certificate']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['costs Certificate' 'federal Appeal on a Question of Law' 'legal Aid' "war Veterans' Special Contribution" 'discretion to Grant Costs Certificate']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Costs Certificate Under S 6 of the Federal Proceedings (costs) Act 1981 (cth) / In Chambers After the Substantive Federal Appeal Succeeded on a Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should be granted a costs certificate under s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth).' "Whether a war veteran's special contribution compels or strongly favours the grant of a costs certificate." 'Whether costs certificates should be granted as an alternative source of legal aid.' "Whether it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payment of the respondent's costs of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the substantive proceeding was a Federal appeal that succeeded on a question of law, the Court was not satisfied that it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise payment of the respondent's costs. The respondent's war veteran status and financial circumstances did not justify treating costs certificates as an alternative to legal aid, each application had to be assessed on its merits, and the appeal succeeded by applying well-established legal principles rather than on a new or novel point of law.

Court Disposition

The application for the grant of a costs certificate under s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) failed.

Orders

  • ['The application for the grant of a costs certificate under s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) fails.']