Garbett v Liu (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 14

Garbett v Liu (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 14

There was sufficient public importance and benefit in the issues raised by the petitions to justify the engagement of s 360(4); subject to submissions from the Commonwealth, the Court was minded to order the Commonwealth to pay the costs of Ms Garbett, Ms Liu and Mr Frydenberg as agreed or assessed, but Mr Yates should bear his own costs. The limited findings did not justify a report under s 363.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Electoral Petition / Costs Application / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs and Reporting Under Statute
Outcome
Orders made to notify the Commonwealth Attorney-General; opportunity provided for submissions as to why costs orders should not be made under s 360(4); second respondent to bear its own costs; remaining questions reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'court of Disputed Returns' 'misleading Publications During Elections' 'powers Under Commonwealth Electoral Act' 'reporting Illegal Practices']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'electoral Law'] ['costs' 'court of Disputed Returns' 'misleading Publications During Elections' 'powers Under Commonwealth Electoral Act' 'reporting Illegal Practices']

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

Electoral Petition / Costs Application / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs and Reporting Under Statute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether petitioners' and respondents' costs should be paid by the Commonwealth under s 360(4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)" "Whether first respondents' costs should be paid by the Commonwealth or the petitioners" 'Whether the Court should direct reporting under s 363 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient public importance and benefit in the issues raised by the petitions to justify the engagement of s 360(4); subject to submissions from the Commonwealth, the Court was minded to order the Commonwealth to pay the costs of Ms Garbett, Ms Liu and Mr Frydenberg as agreed or assessed, but Mr Yates should bear his own costs. The limited findings did not justify a report under s 363.

Court Disposition

Orders made to notify the Commonwealth Attorney-General; opportunity provided for submissions as to why costs orders should not be made under s 360(4); second respondent to bear its own costs; remaining questions reserved.

Orders

  • ['Applicant and first respondent to jointly notify Commonwealth Attorney-General; Commonwealth may make submissions on costs within 28 days.' 'If submissions filed, applicant and first respondent may reply within 14 days.' 'Second respondent bears its own costs.' 'Remaining costs issues to be determined on the...