Auton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 2) [2003] FCA 408

Auton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 2) [2003] FCA 408

The application was dismissed because it was commenced prematurely, and any withdrawal of the CNA allegations by APRA was considered a collateral advantage, not justifying a special order as to costs. Accordingly, standard costs order against the applicant was warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Roger Auton; First Respondent: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority; Second Respondent: Earl Burgess
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application / Reasons for Judgment and Orders for Costs
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Premature Proceedings, Costs Orders, Withdrawal of Allegations
Administrative Law Premature Proceedings Costs Orders Withdrawal of Allegations

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Auton

Applicant

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority

First Respondent

Earl Burgess

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Reasons for Judgment and Orders for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withdrawal of allegations by the respondent entitled the applicant to a special order as to costs
  2. 2 Whether the commencement of the proceeding was premature

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was commenced prematurely, and any withdrawal of the CNA allegations by APRA was considered a collateral advantage, not justifying a special order as to costs. Accordingly, standard costs order against the applicant was warranted.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs.