Stuart v Sanderson [2000] FCA 1240

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Stuart v Sanderson [2000] FCA 1240 DIANA BETTINA STUART v LIEUTENANT GENERAL SANDERSON & ANOR N 464 of 1999 MADGWICK J 4 SEPTEMBER 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 464 of 1999

BETWEEN: DIANA BETTINA STUART

APPLICANT

AND: LIEUTENANT GENERAL SANDERSON

(acting as Chief of General Staff)

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: CHIEF OF THE ARMY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER: 4 SEPTEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondents should pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 464 of 1999

BETWEEN: DIANA BETTINA STUART

APPLICANT

AND: LIEUTENANT GENERAL SANDERSON

(acting as Chief of General Staff)

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND: CHIEF OF THE ARMY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MADGWICK J

DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR 1. I am indebted to the parties for their helpful written submissions. My conclusion is that the respondents should pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs. 2. This view does not represent an inappropriate resort to Solomon's methods. The applicant won on the principal issue. Most of her costs are likely to be attributable to the preparation and presentation of her case on that issue. 3. In order to succeed on the principal issue, the applicant had also to meet a powerful case involving quasi-discretionary and discretionary issues. Her path was made the harder by delay and lack of timely attention to the proper legal analysis of her plight. To some extent, she did receive something like a dispensation from the Court. Had she acted in a timely way to vindicate the legal position which, ultimately, she successfully asserted, both her costs and the respondents' costs would have been less.