Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS Practice and procedure - Federal Court Rules - taxation - late service by applicant of notice of motion and statement of objections - whether non-compliance with 0.62 sub-rule 42(6) made application under sub-rule 42(1A) void and of no effect - power of taxing officer to waive requirements of 0.62 sub-rule 42(6) - power to refer questions arising in
taxation for the direction of the Court.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s.59
Federal Court Rules 0.1, 0.3, 0.19, 0.52, 0.62
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Judiciary Act 1903 s.39B
Moore v. Tooheys Ltd. (1981) 56 F.L.R. 345
Alliance Acceptance Co. Ltd. v. Makas (1976) 26 F.L.R. 451
JET CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
and
PETRES PTY. LIMITED and OTHERS
V. No. G 109 of 1983
Northrop J. Melbourne
23 December 1985
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) V. No. G 109 of 1983 ) )
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: JET CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED Applicant and PETRES PTY. LIMITED and OTHERS Respondents COURT: NORTHROP J. DATE: 23 DECEMBER 1985
PLACE: MELBOURNE
MINUTE OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: -
1. The decision of the taxing officer not to proceed with the hearing of the application be set aside.
2. The taxing officer be directed to hear and determine the application.
3. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of this motion.
(Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in 0.36 of the Rules of Court.)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) V. No. G 109 of 1983 ) )
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN : JET CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED Applicant and PETRES PTY. GIMITED and OTHERS Respondents
COURT: NORTHROP J.
DATE: 23 DECEMBER 1985
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The motion before the Court raises for consideration the nature of the powers conferred upon a taxing officer by 0.62 of the Federal Court Rules. In particular, the motion raises for determination the question of whether the taxing officer has power to waive the requirements of 0.62 sub-rule 42(6) in circumstances where a party to a taxation of a bill of costs, in conformity with the requirements of 0.62 sub-rules 42(1A), (2), (3), (4) and (5), has made application to the taxing officer to reconsider his decision in allowing some items in the bill, but failed, on the date he filed his application, to give notice of that application to the other parties interested. It is clear
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