FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Leslie, in the matter of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

v Hennessy [2001] FCA 498

IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976

QUEENSLAND ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS; JOHN WILLIAM LESLIE a member of the above Corporation v PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY

Q 143 OF 2000

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS LEGAL SERVICES SECRETARIAT ABORIGINAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS; JOHN WILLIAM LESLIE a member of the above Corporation v PHILIP ARTHUR HENNESSY

Q 144 OF 2000

ryan, dowsett & hely jj

2 MAY 2001

BRISBANE

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976

IN THE MATTER OF THE ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1                     The Court has previously published its reasons for dismissing the appeals in these matters.  The respondent now seeks orders that the appellant pay the costs of the appeals on an indemnity basis.  Whilst there is much in the respondent’s complaint that the appeals had no real merit, nonetheless we are conscious of the fact that these disputes arose out of differences concerning the administration of corporations set up to assist in advancing the interests of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders and in administering the funds made available for that purpose.  We are sure that all parties were motivated only by the desire to advance this purpose, although there were obviously substantial differences as to how that should best be done.

2                     In any event, it does not seem to us that in a simple appeal of this nature, there should be any substantial difference between costs recoverable on the appropriate scale and indemnity costs.  The profession should not assume that in all proceedings, the Court will assume that scale costs will be less than adequate to provide indemnity for all costs reasonably incurred.  The appellant should pay the respondent’s costs in each appeal on the usual “party and party” basis.

Associate:

Dated:              2 May 2001