Commissioner, Australian Federal Police v Samsonidis (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 81 (8 June 2007)

Last Updated: 12 June 2007

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Commissioner, Australian Federal Police v Samsonidis (No 2)

[2007] FCAFC 81

COSTS – appellant successful on sole issue on appeal – matter remitted to primary judge to determine issue not resolved at first instance – whether costs of the appeal follow the event – no special circumstances justifying costs not following the event



Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 6(1)

Commissioner, Australian Federal Police v Samsonidis [2007] FCAFC 54, cited
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229, followed














THE COMMISSIONER, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v DIMITRIOS SAMSONIDIS

VID 1418 OF 2006

RYAN, MARSHALL and jessup jJ
8 JUNE 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1418 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	THE COMMISSIONER, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Appellant
AND:	DIMITRIOS SAMSONIDIS Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN, MARSHALL AND JESSUP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	8 JUNE 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1418 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	THE COMMISSIONER, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICEAppellant
AND:	DIMITRIOS SAMSONIDISRespondent

JUDGE:	RYAN, MARSHALL and jessup jJ
DATE:	8 JUNE 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1	On 20 April 2007, the Court allowed an appeal from the judgment of the primary judge in this proceeding; see Commissioner, Australian Federal Police v Samsonidis [2007] FCAFC 54. The Court ordered that "the parties file and serve within 14 days written submissions as to the orders which they contend should be made in respect of the costs of the appeal".
2	The appellant filed his submissions on the costs of the appeal on 7 May 2007. The respondent purported to file what appear to be his submissions on the costs of the appeal on 7 June 2007 (over one month out of time). The respondent submits that each party should bear its costs of the appeal. No reasons were advanced in support of that position. For the reasons set out below, there is no basis for making such an order.
3	As the appellant succeeded on the sole issue raised on the appeal and no special circumstances apply which justify some other order, it is appropriate that costs follow the event; see Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229 at [11] per Black CJ and French J.
4	It is open to the respondent to apply under s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) for a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.
5	The Court will order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Ryan, Marshall and Jessup.

Associate:

Dated: 8 June 2007

Counsel for the appellant:	Mr T Pagone QC with Ms K Walker
Solicitor for the appellant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the respondent:	Mr G Livermore

Solicitors for the respondent:	Haines & Polites
Date of receipt of last written submission:	7 June 2007
Date of Judgment:	8 June 2007