Madsen v Power (No 2) [2010] FCA 686

Madsen v Power (No 2) [2010] FCA 686

The applicant did not show that the Tribunal acted perversely or with disregard for elementary principles, and the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and did not actively defend the Tribunal's decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal should not be ordered to pay the applicant's costs merely because its decision was held bad in law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to Review a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Costs Judgment After Orders Setting Aside the Tribunal's Decision and Remitting the Complaint
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Against a Submitting Tribunal' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decision' 'superannuation Death Benefit Complaint' 'interdependency Relationship']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'superannuation'] ['costs Against a Submitting Tribunal' 'judicial Review of Tribunal Decision' 'superannuation Death Benefit Complaint' 'interdependency Relationship']

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

Application to Review a Decision of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal / Costs Judgment After Orders Setting Aside the Tribunal's Decision and Remitting the Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal, having filed a submitting appearance except as to costs, should be ordered to pay the applicant's costs." 'Whether the Tribunal acted perversely or with disregard for elementary principles so as to justify a costs order against it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not show that the Tribunal acted perversely or with disregard for elementary principles, and the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and did not actively defend the Tribunal's decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal should not be ordered to pay the applicant's costs merely because its decision was held bad in law.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs.']