Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (No 5) [2007] FCA 1591

Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria (No 5) [2007] FCA 1591

Because the respondents had been successful in resisting the application and the applicant's notices of motion, and the applicant showed no conduct by the respondents or Russell Kennedy connected with the proceeding that justified departure from the usual rule, the unsuccessful applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs and her application for costs was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Decision / After Dismissal of the Applicant's Motions and Refusal of Leave to File the Application and Claim Pursuant to S 46 PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) Out of Time
Outcome
The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['discretion to Award Costs Under S 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Against an Unsuccessful Party']
['costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['discretion to Award Costs Under S 43(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Against an Unsuccessful Party']

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

Costs Decision / After Dismissal of the Applicant's Motions and Refusal of Leave to File the Application and Claim Pursuant to S 46 PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (cth) Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding" 'Whether there was any basis to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the respondents or Russell Kennedy in favour of the applicant']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents had been successful in resisting the application and the applicant's notices of motion, and the applicant showed no conduct by the respondents or Russell Kennedy connected with the proceeding that justified departure from the usual rule, the unsuccessful applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs and her application for costs was refused.

Court Disposition

The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding."]