Bannister v New Zealand [1999] FCA 838

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bannister v New Zealand [1999] FCA 838 WILLIAM TUHURU DAVID BANNISTER v NEW ZEALAND AND MR KILNER SM QG 140 OF 1998

SPENDER, KIEFEL & DOWSETT JJ 25 JUNE 1999 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 140 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

BETWEEN: WILLIAM TUHURU DAVID BANNISTER

Appellant

AND: NEW ZEALAND

First Respondent

MR KILNER SM

Second Respondent

JUDGES: SPENDER, KIEFEL & DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 25 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The first respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of proceedings in this Court and in the Supreme Court Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 140 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

BETWEEN: WILLIAM TUHURU DAVID BANNISTER

Appellant

AND: NEW ZEALAND

First Respondent

MR KILNER SM

Second Respondent

JUDGES: SPENDER, KIEFEL & DOWSETT JJ

DATE: 25 JUNE 1999

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1 In this matter, the court allowed an appeal against an order for extradition made by a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, reviewing the earlier order of a Stipendiary Magistrate. When judgment was delivered, we invited the parties to make written submissions as to costs. Submissions have been received from both parties. The appellant seeks an order that the first respondent pay its costs of the appeal to this Court, of the proceedings in the Supreme Court and of the proceedings before the Magistrate. The first respondent has indicated that it does not object to such orders. 2 At the time of delivering judgment in the Supreme Court, Atkinson J raised the question of costs, but counsel for New Zealand indicated that he did not seek an order. As New Zealand was the successful party in the Supreme Court, it was the only party which could realistically have sought such an order. As we have substituted another order for that made by her Honour, and as the new order favours the appellant, he ought have the costs of proceedings in the Supreme Court. It appears from the transcript that no order for costs was sought in the Magistrates Court. In those circumstances, such costs have never been in issue between the parties. It is hard to see how they can properly be the subject of this appeal. It would not be appropriate for this Court to become involved in that matter. That should not preclude the parties from reaching any appropriate agreement as to costs. 3 In the circumstances, we order that the first respondent pay the appellant's costs of proceedings in this Court and in the Supreme Court. We make no order as to the costs in the Magistrates Court.