Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2003] FCAFC 226

Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2003] FCAFC 226

The application for costs was dismissed because the Union did not demonstrate special circumstances requiring a costs order against the Commonwealth, and it was not shown that the Minister's intervention materially increased the Union's costs in the appeal or in opposing the application for leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in an Appeal Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Determination of the First Respondent's Application for Costs Against the Intervener After Dismissal of the Appeal and After Leave to Appeal Had Been Granted
Outcome
The first respondent's application for costs against the intervener was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Against an Intervener' 'ministerial Intervention' 'special Circumstances for Costs Orders' 'costs in Proceedings Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']
['costs' 'workplace Relations' 'federal Appellate Procedure'] ['costs Against an Intervener' 'ministerial Intervention' 'special Circumstances for Costs Orders' 'costs in Proceedings Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']

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 Application in an Appeal Arising Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Full Court Determination of the First Respondent's Application for Costs Against the Intervener After Dismissal of the Appeal and After Leave to Appeal Had Been Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent should obtain costs against the Commonwealth in respect of the Minister's intervention in the appeal under s471(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." 'Whether special circumstances existed justifying a costs order against an intervener.' "Whether the Minister's intervention materially increased the first respondent's costs in the appeal or in the application for leave to appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for costs was dismissed because the Union did not demonstrate special circumstances requiring a costs order against the Commonwealth, and it was not shown that the Minister's intervention materially increased the Union's costs in the appeal or in opposing the application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's application for costs against the intervener was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application of the first respondent for costs against the intervener (on behalf of the Commonwealth), in respect of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal, be dismissed.']