Federal Court. Can it be said that the "Minister has no interests in the outcome of this litigation beyond ensuring that the law of the Parliament is applied correctly to the personal circumstances of a litigant who has been deprived of his liberty by the State"?
The Minister conceded a judicial review application, but based on a jurisdictional error identified by the Minister himself, being different to the jurisdictional errors pleaded in the judicial review application.
The Minister sought orders for the parties to bear their own costs, and the Applicant sought orders for the Minister to pay costs of the judicial review application.
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that the Minister’s position is not improved by his submission that the error was drawn to the applicant’s attention “against the Minister’s interests”, as the "Minister has no interests in the outcome of this litigation beyond ensuring that the law of the Parliament is applied correctly to the personal circumstances of a litigant who has been deprived of his liberty by the State"?
Question 2: If a costs order is made against the Minister, should the time from which the Minister became aware of the basis for the concession be relevant as to the date from which costs should be paid, regardless of whether and when the Applicant became aware of such basis?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: