FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Secretary, Dept of Family & Community Services [2001] FCA 1562
MOHINDER SINGH v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
NO. V 130 OF 2001
BEAUMONT, KIEFEL & HELY JJ
8 NOVEMBER 2001
SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
MOHINDER SINGH APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
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.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGES: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
1 This appeal was dismissed by the Full Court in a judgment of the Court given on 21 September 2001 (Singh v Department of Family and Community Services [2001] FCA 1281). At that time, costs were reserved with liberty granted to the parties to make any application in relation to costs by way of written submissions. Each party has now made written submissions which the Court has considered.
2 In our view, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reason why the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should not apply in relation to the appeal. Accordingly, we order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
ORDERS
3 The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. |
Associate:
Dated: 8 November 2001
|
Solicitor for the Appellant: |
The appellant appeared in person |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Eilish Cooke |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Sparke Helmore |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
28 August 2001 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
8 November 2001 |
