Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review [2023] FCAFC 160 Appeal from: Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review (No 4) [2022] FCA 780
File number(s): QUD 267 of 2022
Judgment of: CHARLESWORTH, SARAH C DERRINGTON AND DOWNES JJ
Date of judgment: 3 October 2023
Catchwords: COSTS – application for leave to appeal a costs order – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether primary judgment attended by sufficient doubt – whether adequate reasons given by primary judge – where delay in giving judgment – whether primary judge erred in concluding that first respondent's resistance of the proceeding was not unarguable or hopeless – application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 21, 24(1A), 43(2) Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ss 82, 89C Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Cases cited: Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd v Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 31 Chamberlain v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 164 CLR 502 Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) [2023] FCAFC 97 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 26 Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 140 FCR 17; [2004] FCAFC 189 Goodwin v HBCA Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 166 Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Dimension Agriculture Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCAFC 140 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Housing Commission of New South Wales v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 IFTC Broking Services Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 268 ALR 1; [2010] FCAFC 22 Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review (No 4) [2022] FCA 780 Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd v Treasury Wine Estates Ltd (2017) 252 FCR 1; [2017] FCAFC 98 Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush [2018] FCAFC 70 NRM Corporation Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2016] FCAFC 98 Penfold v Penfold (1980) 144 CLR 311 Police Federation of Australia v Nixon (2011) 198 FCR 267; [2011] FCAFC 161 Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Ltd (2012) 202 FCR 158; [2012] FCAFC 31 Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2010) 81 ATR 36; [2010] FCAFC 139 Robinson v Deep Investments Pty Ltd (2018) 364 ALR 305; [2018] FCAFC 232 Sullivan v Trilogy Funds Management Ltd (2017) 255 FCR 503; [2017] FCAFC 153 TechnologyOne Ltd v Roohizadegan (2021) 309 IR 202; [2021] FCAFC 137 Vicforests v Environment East Gippsland Inc [2023] VSCA 159 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24 Webuildem Pty Ltd (ACN 102 786 621) v Arab Bank Australia Ltd (ABN 37 002 950 745) (2013) 300 ALR 99; [2013] FCA 37
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate