Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160

Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160

Because the parties agreed as to the costs orders and the proposed orders were appropriate, the respondent was ordered to pay Woodward's costs and no order as to costs was made in Gundry.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Supplementary Reasons as to Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made in accordance with the parties' agreed proposed orders.
Legal Topics
["veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal" 'costs Orders']
['administrative Law' 'costs'] ["veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal" 'costs Orders']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal From the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Supplementary Reasons as to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs orders should be made following judgment delivered on 30 July 2003.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties agreed as to the costs orders and the proposed orders were appropriate, the respondent was ordered to pay Woodward's costs and no order as to costs was made in Gundry.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in accordance with the parties' agreed proposed orders.

Orders

  • ["In Woodward, the respondent pay the applicant's costs." 'In Gundry, there be no order as to costs.']