Doyle on behalf of the Iman People #2 v State of Queensland (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 32

Doyle on behalf of the Iman People #2 v State of Queensland (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 32

The argument advanced by the appellants, while unsuccessful, was not so untenable that pursuing it was unreasonable, and there were no special circumstances warranting a departure from the starting point that each party bears its own costs under s 85A.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal / Post Appeal (costs Determination)
Outcome
Application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'retrospective Legislation' 'native Title Extinguishment']
['native Title' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'retrospective Legislation' 'native Title Extinguishment']

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

Costs Application in Appeal / Post Appeal (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellants' conduct warranted a costs order under s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The argument advanced by the appellants, while unsuccessful, was not so untenable that pursuing it was unreasonable, and there were no special circumstances warranting a departure from the starting point that each party bears its own costs under s 85A.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['The application by the First Respondent for an order for costs is refused.']