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. 4. While costs in this Court are discretionary, the discretion is to be judicially exercised. In my opinion the order which I propose is the result of such an exercise of the discretion. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick. Associate: Dated: 4 September 2000 Counsel for the Applicant: G Corr and B Levet Solicitor for the Applicant: Ron Kessels Solicitor Counsel for the Respondents: R Tracey QC and R Henderson Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 13 September 1999 Date of Judgment: 4 September 2000