MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal (No 2)
[2021] QSC 36
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
Enhanced View
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal (No 2) [2021] QSC 36 |
PARTIES: | MDF (applicant) v MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 744 of 2020 |
DIVISION: | Trial Division |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 March 2021 |
DELIVERED AT: | Maryborough |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
JUDGE: | Crow J |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – COSTS – where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in their application for judicial review – where the respondent, following the general rule, seeks their costs – whether costs ought to follow the event Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 50 |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on their own behalf B Cramer (sol) for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on their own behalf Crown Law for the respondent |
- [1]On 4 February 2021, I dismissed the application filed on 22 July 2020 and invited submissions upon costs. The submissions have been filed and served.
- [2]The successful respondent sought its costs under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”).
- [3]The applicant has filed written submissions which argue, inter alia, that because the respondent has not made an application that addresses the requirements in Part 6 of the Judicial Review Act 1999 (Qld) (“Judicial Review Act”), it is not appropriate to require the applicant to make general submissions about costs because the grounds for a costs application in the Judicial Review Act are narrower than the grounds that apply generally to applications under the UCPR.
- [4]Despite stating he is not making submissions on costs, the applicant submits:
“…In this matter the claims to public interest immunity by the Respondent and the Attorney General are largely inconsistent with the patria potestas with respect to the mentally ill by the executive government as parens patrie – Patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate, consistere. There are a number of other submissions that could be made regarding the importance of this matter, however until an application for costs that complies with Part 6 of the Judicial Review Act is filed and served, there is no utility in making these submissions…”
- [5]The respondent seeks its costs pursuant to r 681 as it argues that s 50 of the Judicial Review Act does not apply. I do not accept that position. Although it is difficult to classify the application brought by MDF by its repetitive references to sections in Part 4 of the Act, it leads me to conclude that the application was, within the meaning of s 50 of the Judicial Review Act, brought under Part 4 of the Act. In those circumstances, a costs order can only be made against the applicant by the respondent in the circumstances where the applicant was wholly unsuccessful in obtaining relief, and one of the matters in s 50(b)(ii) are satisfied. As recorded above, the applicant has been wholly unsuccessful in obtaining the relief sought. Furthermore, as set out in MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2021] QSC 8, the application did not disclose a reasonable basis.
- [6]In those circumstances, I order the applicant to pay the respondent’s standard costs of and incidental to the application.