FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mercer v The Child Support Agency [2004] FCA 551 COSTS – ordinary rule as to costs followed DENISE MARGARET MERCER v THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY No Q 172 of 2001 SPENDER J BRISBANE 5 MAY 2004 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 172 OF 2001 BETWEEN: DENISE MARGARET MERCER APPLICANT AND: THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY RESPONDENT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE OF ORDER: 5 MAY 2004 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT DECLARES THAT: The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed. 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 Q 172 OF 2001 BETWEEN: DENISE MARGARET MERCER APPLICANT AND: THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY RESPONDENT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE: 5 MAY 2004 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 23 April 2004, I delivered my reasons for judgment in this matter. On the question of costs I ordered that any submissions as to why the ordinary rule as to costs should not be followed in this matter be filed by the respondent within seven days. 2 The solicitor for the respondent advised that the Child Support Agency consents to the Court making the following order: that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed. 3 The solicitor for the applicant seeks that the Court make that order as to costs. 4 I therefore order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application as agreed and, if not agreed, to be taxed. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender . Associate: Dated: 5 May 2004 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Stephen Keim Solicitor for the Applicant: Legal Aid Queensland Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Eric Howell Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 4 September 2002 Date of Judgment on Costs: 5 May 2004