FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stuart v Sanderson [2000] FCA 1240

DIANA BETTINA STUART v LIEUTENANT GENERAL SANDERSON & ANOR

N 464 of 1999

MADGWICK J

4 SEPTEMBER 2000

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The respondents should pay two-thirds of the applicant’s costs.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR

1.                  I am indebted to the parties for their helpful written submissions.  My conclusion is that the respondents should pay two-thirds of the applicant’s costs.

2.                  This view does not represent an inappropriate resort to Solomon’s methods.  The applicant won on the principal issue.  Most of her costs are likely to be attributable to the preparation and presentation of her case on that issue.

3.                  In order to succeed on the principal issue, the applicant had also to meet a powerful case involving quasi-discretionary and discretionary issues.  Her path was made the harder by delay and lack of timely attention to the proper legal analysis of her plight.  To some extent, she did receive something like a dispensation from the Court.  Had she acted in a timely way to vindicate the legal position which, ultimately, she successfully asserted, both her costs and the respondents’ costs  would have been less.

4.                  While costs in this Court are discretionary, the discretion is to be judicially exercised.  In my opinion the order which I propose is the result of such an exercise of the discretion.

Associate:

Dated:              4 September 2000