Wills v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Costs) [2022] FCAFC 43

Wills v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Costs) [2022] FCAFC 43

The rejection by Mr Wills of the offer of compromise was not unreasonable in the circumstances, including the character of the offer as a 'walk away' compromise, the applicant's real and significant interest in the appeal, and the lack of clear abuse of process or untenable argument, so this is not an appropriate case for indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Post Appeal, Determination of Costs
Outcome
Application for indemnity costs refused. Applicant to pay first respondent's party/party costs of the appeal, with adjustments as to costs for the costs application.
Legal Topics
['costs—indemnity Basis' 'offers of Compromise' 'judicial Review—procedure']
['administrative Law' 'costs'] ['costs—indemnity Basis' 'offers of Compromise' 'judicial Review—procedure']

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 Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Post Appeal, Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority is entitled to costs on an indemnity basis under r 25.14(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) or consistent with Calderbank principles' 'Whether the offer of compromise made constituted a genuine compromise' 'Whether rejection of the offer of compromise was unreasonable warranting indemnity costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection by Mr Wills of the offer of compromise was not unreasonable in the circumstances, including the character of the offer as a 'walk away' compromise, the applicant's real and significant interest in the appeal, and the lack of clear abuse of process or untenable argument, so this is not an appropriate case for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Application for indemnity costs refused. Applicant to pay first respondent's party/party costs of the appeal, with adjustments as to costs for the costs application.

Orders

  • ["The application by the first respondent for the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis is refused." "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's party/party costs on the appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), as agreed or taxed." "The...