Buluma v Child Support Agency (No 2) [2011] FCA 841

Buluma v Child Support Agency (No 2) [2011] FCA 841

Given that the named respondent has no legal personality and could not enforce a costs order, and the Commonwealth incurred the relevant costs, the appropriate order is that the applicant pay the costs to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Parties
Applicant: Wilberforce Buluma; Respondent: Child Support Agency
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application / Post Judgment Costs Order
Outcome
Costs order varied in favour of Commonwealth of Australia
Legal Topics
Costs, Non Party Costs Orders, Legal Personality
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Legal Personality

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilberforce Buluma

Applicant

Child Support Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Post Judgment Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be ordered in favour of the Commonwealth of Australia rather than the named respondent Child Support Agency
  2. 2 Whether the named respondent has legal personality to receive a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the named respondent has no legal personality and could not enforce a costs order, and the Commonwealth incurred the relevant costs, the appropriate order is that the applicant pay the costs to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied in favour of Commonwealth of Australia

Orders

  • Order 2 of the orders made on 12 May 2011 is varied so that the applicant is to pay the costs of the application to the Commonwealth of Australia.