FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Newport v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 14 Appeal from: Re Newport and Australian Postal Corporation [2015] AATA 261 File number: SAD 137 of 2015 Judges: ALLSOP CJ, BESANKO AND FLICK JJ Date of judgment: 16 February 2016 Cases cited: Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47, (2006) 226 CLR 535 Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2009] HCA 38, (2009) 240 CLR 28 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of last submissions: 19 January 2016 (Applicant) Registry: South Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr LT Grey Solicitor for the Applicant: Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Hanks QC Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS SAD 137 of 2015 BETWEEN: LINDA NEWPORT Applicant AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Respondent JUDGES: ALLSOP CJ, BESANKO AND FLICK JJ DATE OF ORDER: 16 february 2016 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's application that the Court revoke the costs order made on 23 December 2015 and order that each party bear their own costs be refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 The Court handed down its decision in this appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 23 December 2015. The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs (Newport v Australian Postal Corporation [2015] FCAFC 194). 2 The applicant made an oral application that the Court revoke the order as to costs and make an order that each party bear its own costs. She made written submissions in support of that application. The Court decided to consider the applicant's submissions before deciding whether it was necessary to invite the respondent to make submissions in response. 3 The two grounds relied on by the applicant in support of her application are first, that there was a public interest in the clarification of the law in this area and secondly, that part of the difficulty in this area results from the drafting of the Comcare Guide. 4 We have considered the applicant's written submissions carefully. The applicant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and she decided to appeal to this Court. She had the benefit of the authorities we referred to in our earlier reasons, including Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47, (2006) 226 CLR 535 and Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2009] HCA 38, (2009) 240 CLR 28. The fact that certain matters might have been reasonably arguable does not justify the order the applicant seeks. We see no reason to alter the order which we have made and, in these circumstances, it is not necessary to invite the respondent to make submissions in response. 5 The applicant's application that the order as to costs be revoked is refused. 6 Since preparing these reasons, it has come to our attention that the respondent has, in fact, filed written submissions in opposition to the application. In view of the conclusion we have already expressed, it is not necessary for us to address the respondent's submissions. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop, and Justices Besanko and Flick. Associate: Dated: 16 February 2016