Flanagan, John & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Howard, Robert Charles v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Grollo, Bruno v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors [1996] FCA 215

Flanagan, John & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Howard, Robert Charles v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Grollo, Bruno v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors [1996] FCA 215

The applicants are ordered to pay 85% of the costs of the first and second respondents due to the respondents’ substantial success, tempered by the wider implications of the issues; the costs of the third respondent be that respondent's costs in the substantive application; no order as to costs for the fourth and fifth respondents.

Parties
Applicants: John Flanagan and Angela Dianne Flanagan; First Respondent: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Third Respondent: The Commonwealth of Australia; Fourth Respondent: Peter Cadden Heerey; Fifth Respondent: Sally Elizabeth Brown; Applicant: Robert Charles Howard; Applicant: Bruno Grollo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Costs Orders / Post Judgment
Outcome
Applicants to pay 85% of first and second respondents' costs; third respondent's costs to be costs in the substantive application; no order as to costs of fourth and fifth respondents.

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 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Flanagan and Angela Dianne Flanagan

Applicants

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

The Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Peter Cadden Heerey

Fourth Respondent

Sally Elizabeth Brown

Fifth Respondent

Robert Charles Howard

Applicant

Bruno Grollo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Costs Orders / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate allocation of legal costs among parties following the hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are ordered to pay 85% of the costs of the first and second respondents due to the respondents’ substantial success, tempered by the wider implications of the issues; the costs of the third respondent be that respondent's costs in the substantive application; no order as to costs for the fourth and fifth respondents.

Court Disposition

Applicants to pay 85% of first and second respondents' costs; third respondent's costs to be costs in the substantive application; no order as to costs of fourth and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • The applicants pay 85% of the costs of the first and second respondents of these proceedings to date herein, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.
  • The costs of the third respondent of these proceedings to date be that respondent's costs in the substantive application.