Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 66

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCAFC 66 Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 applied CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA N 1014 of 2002

LEE, WHITLAM and JACOBSON JJ 27 MARCH 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1014 of 2002

BETWEEN: CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER

APPELLANT

AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: LEE, WHITLAM and JACOBSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 27 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion is dismissed. 2. The appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1014 of 2002

BETWEEN: CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER

APPELLANT

AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: LEE, WHITLAM and JACOBSON JJ

DATE: 27 MARCH 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT 1 The motion before the Court is for an order for costs after the Court has made orders in the appeal in this matter, those orders being that the appeal be allowed and the orders made in the court below be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the bankruptcy notice issued on 18 June 2002 be set aside. 2 The position in relation to moving the Court for an order for costs in circumstances where the Court's order has in fact been extracted is limited to where there is a slip in the Court's process. Notwithstanding that there may be an argument that the Court is no longer seized of the matter, the Court heard from the appellant, that is, the applicant in the motion, to give the opportunity for all circumstances to be put before the Court in case something had been overlooked. 3 The Court, as has been indicated, turned its mind to the question whether there would have been disbursements in this matter and was satisfied that there was nothing before it to indicate that there were, and so made no order as to costs. The submissions on the motion made by the appellant do not disclose that the Court has overlooked anything that would require it to revisit the issue and there has been nothing pointed to in the way of disbursements that would justify an order being made in the matter. The appellant is in a position where his court fees have been waived at all times and no order for costs would be appropriate in the circumstances. 4 There is plain authority (see: Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403) that time and trouble spent in preparation of one's own litigation is not recompensable by a costs order in favour of a person who is not a legal practitioner. The Court has done no more than follow that precedent. In these circumstances the motion must be dismissed with costs.