FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA P v Child Support Registrar (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 119 Citation: P v Child Support Registrar (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 119 Appeal from: P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312 Parties: P v CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR and M File number(s): NSD 2517 of 2013 Judge(s): PERRAM, PERRY AND GLEESON JJ Date of judgment: 12 September 2014 Catchwords: COSTS – usual rule that costs follow the event applies Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1977 (Cth) s 43 Cases cited: Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 58 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Date of last submissions: 25 August 2014 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 4 Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not make submissions as to costs Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Andras Markus (Australian Government Solicitor) Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2517 of 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: P Appellant AND: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR First Respondent M Second Respondent JUDGES: PERRAM, PERRY AND GLEESON JJ DATE OF ORDER: 12 SEPTEMBER 2014 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2517 of 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: P Appellant AND: CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR First Respondent M Second Respondent JUDGES: PERRAM, PERRY AND GLEESON JJ DATE: 12 SEPTEMBER 2014 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 11 August 2014, the Court delivered its judgment in P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98, dismissing the appeal and ordering the parties to file written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days. 2 The appellant filed no submissions. The first respondent submitted that there were no special circumstances justifying a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. The second respondent had previously filed a submitting appearance save as to costs. 3 Section 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) confers on the Court a broad discretionary power to award costs. The discretion is to be exercised judicially, according to well established principles including that costs ordinarily follow the event: Tramanco Pty Ltd v BPW Transpec Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] FCAFC 58 at [2]. 4 We agree with the submission made by the first respondent that there is no reason why the usual rule should not apply. The appeal was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the appellant will be ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. . I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Perram, Perry and Gleeson. Associate: Dated: 12 September 2014