Gribbles Pathology (Vic) Pty Ltd v Cassidy (No 2) [2002] FCA 960

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gribbles Pathology (Vic) Pty Ltd v Cassidy (No 2) [2002] FCA 960

COSTS – applicant substantially successful in achieving its primary aim in proceeding – applicant unsuccessful in relation to majority of grounds upon which it relied – principles governing exercise of discretion relating to costs.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Gribbles Pathology (Vic) Pty Ltd v Cassidy [2002] FCA 859 referred to Ritter v Godfrey [1920] 2 KB 47 referred to Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] § ATPR 40-748 at 48,136 referred to Saitta Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2001] FCA 8 referred to North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (No 2) [2002] FCA 546 referred to Forster v Farquhar [1893] 1 QB 564 referred to Australian Conservation Foundation v Forestry Commission (1988) 81 ALR 166 referred to Verna Trading Pty Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd [1991] 1 VR 129 referred to

GRIBBLES PATHOLOGY (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 006 823 089) v D I CASSIDY QC, DR E RAIK AND DR F H SMITH CONSTITUTING THE MEDICARE PARTICIPATION REVIEW COMMITTEE and MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGED CARE

V93 of 2001

WEINBERG J 5 AUGUST 2002 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V93 OF 2001

BETWEEN: GRIBBLES PATHOLOGY (VIC) PTY LTD

(ACN 006 823 089)

APPLICANT

AND: D I CASSIDY QC, DR E RAIK AND DR F H SMITH CONSTITUTING THE MEDICARE PARTICIPATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGED CARE

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 5 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The first respondent, whether by itself, its members, officers, employees, or agents, or howsoever otherwise, be restrained from further hearing and determining the matter referred to it by the second respondent pursuant to a notice given by the second respondent under s 23DL(4)(c) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) on 5 July 2000. 2. Order 1 applies only insofar as that notice alleges that the applicant breached pars 15 and 16 of the undertaking accepted by the second respondent on 30 June 1995 and insofar as that notices alleges that the applicant breached par 19 of that undertaking by reason that the applicant's servants, directors or executives breached pars 15 and 16 of the undertaking. 3. Nothing in Order 1 prevents the second respondent from issuing a fresh notice containing the allegations set out above, pursuant to s 23DL(1), provided that the notice complies with the requirements of the Act regarding the provision of adequate particulars. 4. The second respondent pay fifty per cent (50%) of the applicant's costs of and incidental to this proceeding.