Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Raiz v Director of Professional Services Review (No 2) [2024] FCAFC 110 Appeal from: Raiz v Director of Professional Services Review (No 2) [2023] FCA 1293
File number(s): QUD 522 of 2023
Judgment of: GOODMAN, O'SULLIVAN AND MCELWAINE JJ
Date of judgment: 28 August 2024
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – consequential orders – form of relief – decision of primary judge set aside – writ of certiorari to issue quashing the report and draft report of the second respondent – no occasion for a writ of mandamus directed to the first respondent. COSTS where appellant successful on appeal – where formulation of argument differed before primary judge – whether appellant to have his costs of proceeding below – held no special circumstances in this case and accordingly appellant entitled to costs of the proceeding below
Legislation: Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ss 93(1), 95, 96A, 106L(3)(b) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.03
Cases cited: Comcare v Broadhurst (2011) 192 FCR 497 Commissioner of Taxation v AusNet Transmission Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 124 Northern NSW FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 26 FCR 39 Raiz v Director of Professional Service Review (No 2) FCA 1293 Raiz v Director of Professional Services Review [2024] FCAFC 91
Division: General Division
Registry: Queensland
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
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