Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 8

Saitta Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [2001] FCA 8

Applicants are ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to notices of motion except for costs incurred on 9 May 2000, as the respondents’ conduct extended the hearing unnecessarily by pressing an unmeritorious jurisdiction objection.

Parties
Applicant: Saitta Pty Ltd (ACN 005 387 833); Applicant: Neviskia Pty Ltd (ACN 006 552 763); First Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: The Honourable Michael Woolridge (as the Commonwealth Minister of State for Health and Aged Care); Third Respondent: Andrew Podger (as the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care); Fourth Respondent: Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd (ACN 079 618 652)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Notices of Motion for Dismissal of Applications / Post Dismissal, Hearing on Costs
Outcome
Costs orders made against applicants in both proceedings, excluding costs for 9 May 2000.
Legal Topics
Costs, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Costs Jurisdiction

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saitta Pty Ltd (ACN 005 387 833)

Applicant

Neviskia Pty Ltd (ACN 006 552 763)

Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

The Honourable Michael Woolridge (as the Commonwealth Minister of State for Health and Aged Care)

Second Respondent

Andrew Podger (as the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care)

Third Respondent

Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd (ACN 079 618 652)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notices of Motion for Dismissal of Applications / Post Dismissal, Hearing on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants should pay costs of hearing of notices of motion after applications dismissed
  2. 2 Whether applicants should pay costs of second day hearing due to respondents’ failure to concede jurisdiction point

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants are ordered to pay respondents' costs of and incidental to notices of motion except for costs incurred on 9 May 2000, as the respondents’ conduct extended the hearing unnecessarily by pressing an unmeritorious jurisdiction objection.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made against applicants in both proceedings, excluding costs for 9 May 2000.

Orders

  • In proceeding V 732 of 1999, the applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion dated 24 March 2000, except for the costs of the hearing of 9 May 2000.
  • In proceeding V 735 of 1999, the applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the notice of motion dated 24 March 2000, except for the costs of the hearing of 9 May 2000.