Pierce, William Grenville v Giles, Nuntiya [1983] FCA 121

YAN 8S

of

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACT G77 of 1982 DISTRICT REGISTRY

www ws

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: WILLIAM GRENVILLE PIERCE Appellant AND: NUNTIYA GILES Respondent CORAM: Sweeney, Kelly & Neaves JJ. DATE: 25 March, 1983.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

SWEENEY J.

Under section 8 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 provision may be made by Rules of Court for the jurisdiction of the court to be exercisable by the registrar in such cases and subject

to such conditions as are specified 1n che Rules of Court.

Under sub-section (4) a person dissatisfied with an order made by the registrar in the exercise of jurisdiction so conferred upon him may appeal as prescribed by Rules of

Court to the court constituted by one judge.

Order 6 Rule 5(1)(£) of those rules provides that an appeal under section 8(4) shall be by way of rehearing de novo of the application. Mr. Pierce, the defendant in an action brought against him in the Supreme Court appealed to a single judge pursuant to section 8(4) and Order 61, Rule 5(1)(£) against an order for costs made

against him by the registrar.

His Honour held that the registrar had no jurisdiction to make the order for costs and said:-

"The appeal is therefore allowed and the registrar's order for costs is set aside. I would like to save time and costs by making the appropriate order for costs forthwith, but the substance of the matter was dealt with so slightly before me that I am obliged to adjourn the hearing to a day to be fixed for further submissions. The question of the costs of the appeal is reserved."

By an order dated 29 October 1982 the following

orders were made:-

"L. The appeal be allowed and the registrar's order for costs be set aside;