JUDGMENT No. 00.6 . secesceoccesscesesl eeenceneseon IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN TRALIA DISTRI REGISTRY No WAG 19 of 1994 ENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ASSOCIATED MINERALS CONSOLIDATED LIMITED Appellant AND: MMISSTONER OF T Tt Respondent COURT: NORTHROP, SPENDER AND BURCHETT JJ PLACE: PERTH DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 1994 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The respondent pay one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules ~4 NOV 1994 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY Awe IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No WAG 19 of 1994 ENE DIVISION BETWEEN: ASSOCIATED MINERALS CONSOLIDATED LIMITED Appellant AND: COMMISSTONER OF TAXATION Respondent COURT: NORTHROP, SPENDER AND BURCHETT JJ PLACE: PERTH DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: On 23 August 1994, the Court made orders disposing of this appeal and published its reasons for judgment for making those orders. At the same time the Court announced the following views: "5. Either party may file and serve written submissions as to the costs of the appeal within ten days of the date of publication of these reasons. 6. If neither party files written submissions in accordance with order 5, the respondent pay one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal. 7. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the cross-appeal." Pursuant to the leave granted in paragraph 5, on 2 September 1994, the solicitor for the respondent filed submissions supporting an order that each party pay its own costs on the appeal in lieu of the order that the respondent pay one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal. The respondent did not oppose the order set out in paragraph 7. The substance of the submission was: "The two issues on appeal were distinct issues. The Respondent won on one of the issues on appeal i.e. the interest costs on the Eurodollar loan. This issue was the one upon which commercially significant amounts of tax had become due and payable to the Respondent, much greater than the quantum of tax involved in the Plant 19 costs issue. Further, the time occupied in the hearing of the two issues on appeal was approximately equal. If the Respondent had won on the Plant 19 costs issue the whole of the costs of the appeal would have been awarded to the Respondent. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the order as to costs on the cross appeal, each party should pay its own costs on the appeal." During the course of the hearing, the Court raised the question of costs and the submissions then made need not be repeated. By written submissions filed and dated 2 September 1994, the solicitors for the appellant supported the view of the Court expressed in paragraph 6. The Court sees no reason to change its tentative view expressed in paragraph 6. The appellant had to appeal to enforce its legal rights insofar as the appeal was successful. Normally a successful appellant should get an order for costs of the appeal. Here, the appellant succeeded on one issue but failed on the other. Having that in mind, the Court expressed its tentative view on _ costs. After considering the submissions made, the Court concludes firmly with that view. Insofar as the respondent succeeded on one issue, the he respondent benefits by being required to pay one half only of the appellant's costs of the appeal not the whole of them. Accordingly, the Court orders that the respondent pay one half of the appellant's costs of the appeal. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Court. Associate: On. Date: 4 Cay, x JUDGES' CHAMBERS rage FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 4 450 LITTLE BOURKE STREET BR 20a MELBOURNE, 3000 3 November 1994 Ms Sonia Cornale Records Clerk Library and Information Services Principal Registry Federal Court of Australia Level 16 Law Courts Building Queens Square SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sonia Re: mputerized Legal Information Retrieval ste I enclose the following judgment for inclusion in the data base of Federal Court Judgments: Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited v Commissioner of Taxation No WAG 19 of 1994 The word processing disk containing the above judgment is enclosed. Please return the disk to the me when appropriate. Thank you Nopokt ENNY WORTH ecretary to The Hon Mr Justice Northrop Enc