{"id":"C2004A02401","name":"Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981","slug":"federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"23 of 1981","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":34150,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A02401-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"#### 1 Short title\n\n  This Act may be cited as the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n  This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation","content":"#### 3 Interpretation\n\n  (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:\n\n> costs, in relation to proceedings, includes:\n\n    (a) the costs of obtaining a costs certificate in respect of the proceedings; and\n    (b) the costs of taxing, or otherwise ascertaining, costs in respect of the proceedings.\n\n> costs certificate means a costs certificate granted under subsection 6(1) or (2), 7(1), 7A(1), 8(1) or (2), 9(1), 10(2) or (3) or 10A(2).\n\n> Federal appeal means:\n\n    (a) an appeal to the Full Court of the High Court from a judgment of the High Court constituted by a single Justice; or\n    (b) an appeal to the High Court from a judgment of the Federal Court; or\n    (c) an appeal to the High Court from a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory; or\n    (d) an appeal to the High Court from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1); or\n    (e) an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court from a judgment of the Federal Court constituted by a single Judge; or\n    (ea) an appeal to the Federal Court from a judgment of the Supreme Court of a State; or\n    (eb) an appeal to the Federal Court from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory exercising jurisdiction conferred on the court by or under a law of the Commonwealth, other than jurisdiction conferred under an Act providing for the acceptance, administration or government of that Territory; or\n    (f) an appeal to the Federal Court from a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory; or\n    (fa) an appeal to the Federal Court from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); or\n    (g) an appeal to the Federal Court from a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal; or\n    (ga) an appeal that is:\n    (i) from a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal; and\n    (ii) heard and determined, or to be heard and determined, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); or\n    (h) an appeal to the Supreme Court of a Territory from a judgment of another court of that Territory; or\n    (j) an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) constituted by a single Judge; or\n    (ja) an appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2); or\n    (k) an appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) from a judgment of a court of a State, a court of an internal Territory (including the Northern Territory) or a court of Norfolk Island.\n\n> Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia means:\n\n    (a) the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1); or\n    (b) the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2).\n\n> Federal Court means the Federal Court of Australia.\n\n> judgment includes any decree, order or decision, whether final or interlocutory, and a conviction or sentence.\n\n> proceedings includes a Federal appeal and a trial.\n\n> sequence of appeals means a sequence of appeals in which each appeal that follows next after another appeal in the sequence is an appeal against the judgment in that other appeal.\n\n> Territory does not include the Northern Territory.\n\n  (2) A reference in this Act to an appellant to an appeal, a respondent to an appeal, a party to a cause or to proceedings, an accused person or a person who has been granted a costs certificate shall be read as including a reference to the legal personal representative of the appellant, respondent, party or person, as the case requires.\n  (3) In this Act, a reference to a court of a Territory (including a reference to the Supreme Court of a Territory) does not include a reference to a court of Western Australia exercising jurisdiction:\n    (a) in or in relation to the Territory of Christmas Island under the Christmas Island Act 1958; or\n    (b) in or in relation to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs to be costs as between party and party etc.","content":"#### 4 Costs to be costs as between party and party etc.\n\n  (1) A reference in this Act to costs incurred by a person in relation to proceedings shall be read as a reference to costs so incurred ascertained as if they were costs as between party and party.\n  (2) For the purposes of this Act:\n    (a) the amount of any costs incurred by a person in relation to proceedings (other than costs to which paragraph (b) applies) is:\n    (i) an amount agreed on in respect of those costs by the Attorney‑General and the person who has been granted the costs certificate in relation to those costs; or\n    (ii) where under the regulations the amount of those costs has been assessed for the purposes of this Act by an officer of a court—the amount so assessed; or\n    (b) where any costs incurred by a person in relation to proceedings have been ordered by a court to be paid to the person by another party to the proceedings and the amount of those costs is specified in, or has been ascertained in accordance with, the order of the court—the amount of those costs is the amount so specified or ascertained, as the case may be.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Extension to external Territories","content":"#### 5 Extension to external Territories\n\n  This Act extends to every external Territory.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates for respondents—Federal appeals","content":"#### 6 Costs certificates for respondents—Federal appeals\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, where a Federal appeal succeeds on a question of law, the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of a respondent to the appeal, grant to the respondent a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.\n  (2) Subject to this Act, where a Federal appeal in relation to the amount of damages awarded by a court succeeds, the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of a respondent to the appeal, grant to the respondent a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.\n  (3) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (1) or (2) by a court to a respondent to a Federal appeal is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to the respondent in respect of:\n    (a) the costs incurred by the respondent in relation to the appeal; and\n    (b) any costs incurred by an appellant in relation to the appeal that have been, or are required to be, paid by the respondent to the appellant in pursuance of an order of the court, not being costs to which a costs certificate granted under section 7 relates.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates for appellants—Federal appeals","content":"#### 7 Costs certificates for appellants—Federal appeals\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, where:\n    (a) a respondent to a Federal appeal is, in pursuance of an order of a court, required to pay to an appellant any costs (in this section referred to as the relevant costs) incurred by the appellant in relation to the appeal; and\n    (b) under subsection 6(1) or (2), the respondent is entitled to apply to the court for a costs certificate in respect of the appeal;\n  the court, on the application of the appellant, may, if it is satisfied that:\n    (c) the respondent is, by reason of lack of means, unable to pay the relevant costs or a part of the relevant costs;\n    (d) the payment of the relevant costs or a part of the relevant costs would cause the respondent undue hardship; or\n    (e) the whereabouts of the respondent are unknown;\n  grant to the appellant a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.\n  (2) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (1) by a court to an appellant to a Federal appeal is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to the appellant in respect of:\n    (a) where paragraph (1)(c) applies—the whole of the relevant costs or that part of the relevant costs that the respondent is unable to pay;\n    (b) where paragraph (1)(d) applies—the whole of the relevant costs or that part of the relevant costs the payment of which would cause the respondent undue hardship; or\n    (c) where paragraph (1)(e) applies—the relevant costs.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"7A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates for appellants where no respondent","content":"#### 7A Costs certificates for appellants where no respondent\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, where a Federal appeal succeeds on a question of law and there is no respondent to the appeal, the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of the appellant, grant to the appellant a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.\n  (2) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (1) by a court to an appellant is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant in relation to the appeal.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates—new trials","content":"#### 8 Costs certificates—new trials\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, where, in a Federal appeal that succeeds on a question of law, the court that heard the appeal grants a new trial in a cause of a civil nature, the court may, on the application of a party to the cause, grant to the party a costs certificate in respect of the new trial.\n  (2) Subject to this Act, where, in a Federal appeal, being a Federal appeal against a conviction (whether on indictment or otherwise) or a Federal appeal in a sequence of appeals which includes an appeal against a conviction (whether on indictment or otherwise), that succeeds on a question of law, the court that heard the Federal appeal grants a new trial of an accused person, the court may, on the application of the accused person, grant to the accused person a costs certificate in respect of the new trial.\n  (3) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (1) or (2) to a party to a cause or to an accused person, as the case may be, by a court that has granted a new trial is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to that party or accused person in respect of such part as the Attorney‑General considers appropriate of any costs incurred by that party or accused person in relation to the new trial.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates—Federal appeals in family law proceedings","content":"#### 9 Costs certificates—Federal appeals in family law proceedings\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, and in particular without limiting section 6, where:\n    (a) a Federal appeal referred to in paragraph (d), (j), (ja) or (k) of the definition of Federal appeal in subsection 3(1) succeeds on a question of law; and\n    (b) in accordance with section 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975, each party to the appeal bears his or her own costs;\n  the court that heard the appeal may, on the application of the appellant to the appeal, grant to the appellant a costs certificate in respect of the appeal.\n  (2) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (1) by a court to an appellant to a Federal appeal is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant in relation to the appeal.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates—incomplete proceedings","content":"#### 10 Costs certificates—incomplete proceedings\n\n  (1) This section applies to the High Court, the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and a court of a Territory.\n  (2) Subject to this Act, where any proceedings in a court to which this section applies are rendered abortive by reason that the person, or a person, before whom the proceedings are being conducted dies, resigns, or is removed or dismissed from, his or her office, suffers a protracted illness or otherwise becomes unable to continue with, or to give judgment in, the proceedings, the court may, on the application of a party to the proceedings, grant to that party a costs certificate in respect of the proceedings.\n  (3) Subject to this Act, where:\n    (a) the hearing of any proceedings in a court to which this section applies is discontinued and a new hearing is ordered; and\n    (b) the discontinuance and new hearing are not attributable to the neglect, default or improper act of any party to the proceedings;\n  the court may, on the application of a party to the proceedings, grant to that party a costs certificate in respect of the proceedings.\n  (4) The certificate that may be granted under subsection (2) or (3) by a court to a party to proceedings that have been rendered abortive or the hearing of which has been discontinued, as the case may be, is a certificate stating that, in the opinion of the court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorize a payment under this Act to that party in respect of such part as the Attorney‑General considers appropriate of any costs incurred by that party in relation to those proceedings.\n  (5) A reference in this section to proceedings in a court includes a reference to proceedings by way of an appeal to that court.","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"10A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates—Administrative Review Tribunal","content":"#### 10A Costs certificates—Administrative Review Tribunal\n\n  (1) Subject to this Act, if a review by the Administrative Review Tribunal of a decision has to be reheard because of paragraph 44(1)(a) or section 45, 46 or 47 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceeding other than the person who made the decision that was subject to the review, grant to that party a costs certificate in respect of the application for review.\n  (2) The certificate that may be granted to a person under subsection (1) is a certificate stating that, in the Tribunal’s opinion, it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorise a payment under this Act to the person in respect of the costs incurred by the person in relation to the proceeding before the Tribunal.\n  (3) An appeal does not lie to any court from a refusal of the Tribunal to grant a costs certificate.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs of appeal include costs of earlier appeals","content":"#### 11 Costs of appeal include costs of earlier appeals\n\n  A reference in section 6, 7, 7A or 9 to the costs incurred by a person in relation to a Federal appeal shall, where the appeal is in a sequence of appeals that includes an earlier Federal appeal or earlier Federal appeals, be read as including a reference to the costs incurred by the person in relation to that earlier Federal appeal or all those earlier Federal appeals.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates may be granted in Chambers","content":"#### 12 Costs certificates may be granted in Chambers\n\n  The jurisdiction conferred on a court by this Act to grant costs certificates may be exercised by a member of that court sitting in Chambers.","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"13","sectionType":"section","heading":"No appeal against refusal of costs certificate","content":"#### 13 No appeal against refusal of costs certificate\n\n  An appeal does not lie from a refusal of a court to grant a costs certificate.","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"14","sectionType":"section","heading":"Costs certificates not to be granted to certain persons","content":"#### 14 Costs certificates not to be granted to certain persons\n\n  (1) A court is not empowered by this Act to grant a costs certificate to:\n    (a) the Commonwealth;\n    (b) a State;\n    (c) the Northern Territory;\n    (d) a person suing, or being sued, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of any State or of the Northern Territory;\n    (e) an authority of the Commonwealth, of any State or of any Territory (including the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island);\n    (f) a body corporate that has a paid­‑up capital of $200,000 or more; or\n    (g) a body corporate that is not a body corporate referred to in paragraph (f) but is related to such a body corporate.\n  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the question whether bodies corporate are related to each other shall be determined in the same manner as the question whether corporations, within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001, are related to each other would be determined under that Act.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"15","sectionType":"section","heading":"Vacation of costs certificates","content":"#### 15 Vacation of costs certificates\n\n  (1) A costs certificate granted under subsection 6(1) or (2) to a respondent to a Federal appeal is vacated if the respondent to whom the certificate has been granted:\n    (a) appeals from the judgment in that appeal; and\n    (b) is a successful party in the appeal from that judgment or in a later appeal in the same sequence as the appeal from that judgment.\n  (2) A costs certificate granted under subsection 7(1) to an appellant to a Federal appeal is vacated if the respondent to whom the certificate relates:\n    (a) appeals from the judgment in that appeal; and\n    (b) is a successful party in the appeal from that judgment or in a later appeal in the same sequence as the appeal from that judgment.\n  (3) A costs certificate granted under subsection 9(1) to an appellant to a Federal appeal is vacated if the respondent to the appeal:\n    (a) appeals from the judgment in that appeal; and\n    (b) is the successful party in the appeal from that judgment or in a later appeal in the same sequence as the appeal from that judgment.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"16","sectionType":"section","heading":"Payments on costs certificates","content":"#### 16 Payments on costs certificates\n\n  (1) A person who has been granted a costs certificate (not being a certificate that has been vacated under section 15) may apply to the Attorney‑General for payment in accordance with this Act in respect of the certificate.\n  (2) Subject to section 17, where an application is made by a person under subsection (1) in respect of a costs certificate, the Attorney‑General may, having regard to the provisions of section 18 and to the moneys available at the time of the application for making payments under this Act, authorize the payment under this Act to that person of an amount not exceeding the amount or the sum of the amounts of the costs to which the certificate relates, and a payment so authorized shall be made accordingly.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"17","sectionType":"section","heading":"No payment in respect of costs certificates capable of being vacated","content":"#### 17 No payment in respect of costs certificates capable of being vacated\n\n  (1) The Attorney‑General shall not authorize a payment under this Act in respect of a costs certificate referred to in section 15 unless he or she is satisfied, or is entitled under subsection (2) of this section to presume, that the certificate will not be vacated under that section.\n  (2) For the purposes of this section, where:\n    (a) there has been no appeal, or application for leave to appeal, against the judgment in the Federal appeal to which a costs certificate referred to in subsection (1) relates by the respondent an appeal by whom could result in the vacation of the certificate; and\n    (b) the Attorney‑General has been given:\n    (i) notice in writing by that respondent that he or she does not intend to appeal against that judgment; or\n    (ii) in the case of a certificate granted to an appellant to the appeal—notice in writing by the appellant that the appellant has no reason to believe that that respondent will appeal against the judgment;\n  the Attorney‑General is entitled to presume that the certificate will not be vacated.\n  (3) Where:\n    (a) a notice referred to in subparagraph (2)(b)(i) or (ii) has been given by, or in relation to, a respondent to a Federal appeal;\n    (b) an amount has been paid under this Act to a person who has been granted a costs certificate in respect of the appeal that would not have been paid but for that notice; and\n    (c) that respondent appeals, or seeks leave to appeal, against the judgment in the appeal;\n  the person so paid shall, upon demand in writing by the Attorney‑General or a delegate of the Attorney‑General, served on the person, either personally or by post, repay that amount to the Commonwealth within such period, not being less than 7 days, as is specified in the demand and, if the amount is not repaid within that period, the Commonwealth may recover the amount by action in a court of competent jurisdiction as a debt due to the Commonwealth.\n  (4) For the purpose of the application of section 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to the service by post on a person of a demand under subsection (3), such a demand posted as a letter addressed to the person at his or her last address known to the person making the demand shall be deemed to be properly addressed.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"18","sectionType":"section","heading":"Limits of payments in respect of appeals or other proceedings","content":"#### 18 Limits of payments in respect of appeals or other proceedings\n\n  (1) In this section, prescribed maximum amount, in relation to a court or tribunal specified in column 1 of the table in the Schedule, means the amount specified in column 2 of that table opposite to that court or tribunal or such higher amount as is prescribed.\n  (2) The Attorney‑General shall not authorize payment under this Act in respect of a costs certificate (other than a costs certificate granted under subsection 10(2) or (3)) in relation to an appeal or a new trial of an amount that exceeds the prescribed maximum amount in relation to the court that heard that appeal or new trial, as the case may be.\n  (2A) The Attorney‑General must not authorise payment under this Act in respect of a costs certificate granted by the Administrative Review Tribunal under subsection 10A(2) of an amount that exceeds the prescribed maximum amount in relation to that Tribunal.\n  (4) A reference in this section to a court shall be read as a reference to that court however constituted.","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"19","sectionType":"section","heading":"Payments to be made out of annual appropriation","content":"#### 19 Payments to be made out of annual appropriation\n\n  Payments under this Act shall be made out of moneys available under an appropriation made by the Parliament.","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"20","sectionType":"section","heading":"Delegation","content":"#### 20 Delegation\n\n  (1) The Attorney‑General may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him or her, delegate to an officer of the Attorney‑General’s Department any of his or her powers under this Act, other than this power of delegation.\n  (2) A power so delegated, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the Attorney‑General.\n  (3) A delegation under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Attorney‑General.","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"21","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application","content":"#### 21 Application\n\n  (1) A court is not empowered to grant a costs certificate under subsection 6(1) or (2), 7(1) or 9(1) in respect of a Federal appeal instituted, or leave for which was granted, before the commencement of this Act.\n  (2) A court is not empowered to grant a costs certificate under subsection 8(1) or (2) in respect of a new trial granted in a Federal appeal instituted, or leave for which was granted, before the commencement of this Act.\n  (3) A court is not empowered to grant a costs certificate under subsection 10(2) or (3) in respect of proceedings that were rendered abortive, or the hearing of which was discontinued, as the case may be, before the commencement of this Act.\n  (4) A court is not empowered to grant a costs certificate under subsection 7A(1) in respect of a Federal appeal instituted, or leave for which was granted, before the commencement of this subsection.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"22","sectionType":"section","heading":"Regulations","content":"#### 22 Regulations\n\n  The Governor‑General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters required or permitted by this Act to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.","sortOrder":23}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act sets out a new mechanism governing courts’ power to issue costs certificates and the Attorney‑General’s power to make payments from Commonwealth funds for those certificates (see ss6–10A,16). It expressly limits retrospective application to many proceedings instituted before commencement (s21) and excludes certain classes of recipients (s14). The text does not indicate an amendment or narrowing/expansion beyond the instrument’s own rules; it establishes a forward‑looking, bounded scheme for certificates and payments as drafted."},"complexity_factors":["Detailed and technical definitions that determine which proceedings are \"Federal appeals\" and who counts as a party or recipient (s3(1)–(3))","Multiple, distinct grounds and categories for costs certificates across sections 6–10A (respondents, appellants, new trials, incomplete proceedings, ATR rehearings)","Two‑stage process separating judicial certificate issuance from executive payment authorisation (ss6–10A; s16)","Executive discretion and repayment mechanisms tied to potential vacation of certificates (ss15–17)","Statutory payment caps tied to a Schedule and subject to regulation (s18) and dependence on annual appropriation (s19)","Clear exclusions of recipients (government bodies and larger or related corporations) requiring factual assessments under Corporations Act rules (s14(1)–(2))","Cross‑references to other statutes and a Schedule (Family Law Act s114UB, Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, Schedule) that complicate application","No appeal from judicial refusals to grant certificates (s13), increasing the finality of initial judicial decisions","Delegation of executive powers to departmental officers (s20) introducing administrative complexity","Temporal and retrospective limits on application to proceedings begun before commencement (s21)"],"plain_english_summary":"What this Act does, mechanically\n\n- Creates a statutory process for courts to issue \"costs certificates\" when certain federal appeals or related proceedings succeed or are disrupted. A costs certificate is a formal judicial opinion that it would be appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorise a payment from Commonwealth funds for specified legal costs (see sections 6–10A, 16(1)).\n\n- Specifies the kinds of proceedings covered: Federal appeals (broadly defined in section 3(1)), new trials ordered after certain successful appeals (s8), proceedings rendered abortive or discontinued (s10), certain Administrative Review Tribunal rehearings (s10A), and some family law appeals where each party bears own costs (s9). It also treats sequences of appeals so earlier appeals’ costs can be included (s11).\n\n- Sets who may apply for a certificate and the conditions courts must consider. For example, respondents may seek certificates where an appeal succeeds on a question of law (s6). Appellants can be granted certificates where a respondent has been ordered to pay costs but is unable to pay, would suffer undue hardship, or cannot be found (s7). Courts may grant certificates for new trials or incomplete proceedings if they are satisfied the circumstances in sections 8 and 10 apply. The Administrative Review Tribunal may grant certificates for rehearings described in s10A(1).\n\n- Limits which entities can receive certificates: Commonwealth, States, Northern Territory, many government authorities, and larger or related corporations are excluded (s14). The Act also prevents courts from granting certificates for proceedings begun before the Act commenced in many circumstances (s21).\n\n- Puts the payment decision in the hands of the Attorney‑General. A certificate does not itself create a payment right; the holder must apply to the Attorney‑General for payment (s16(1)). The Attorney‑General may authorise payment up to the costs specified in the certificate and must have regard to s18 (limits) and available appropriations (s16(2), s19). The Attorney‑General may delegate powers to officers of the Attorney‑General’s Department (s20).\n\n- Caps how much may be paid in respect of an appeal or new trial by reference to prescribed maximum amounts tied to the court or tribunal (s18). Payments for certificates are to come from Parliament’s annual appropriations (s19).\n\nOfficial purpose-claims and how the Act implements them\n\n- The Act structures a way for successful parties in certain federal proceedings to seek Commonwealth-funded reimbursement of costs when a court considers such payment appropriate (see the operative construction of a certificate in s6(3), s7(2), s8(3), s9(2), s10(4), s10A(2)). Mechanically, the process requires: (1) court grants certificate; (2) applicant applies to Attorney‑General for payment; (3) Attorney‑General authorises payment subject to limits, appropriation and other conditions (ss6,16,18,19).\n\n- The text treats a certificate as an opinion that payment would be appropriate, not as an automatic entitlement: the Attorney‑General retains discretionary control over actual payments (s16(2)). The Attorney‑General must also be satisfied a certificate will not be vacated before authorising payment in cases where vacation is possible (s17).\n\nCosts, incentives, trade‑offs, compliance burdens and discretion (mechanical effects)\n\n- Who pays: payments come from Commonwealth appropriations (s19). The Attorney‑General authorises payments and may set or follow prescribed maximum amounts (ss16,18). This centralises budgetary control in the executive.\n\n- Who decides: courts decide whether to grant costs certificates (ss6–10A); the Attorney‑General (or delegated officer) decides whether and how much to pay under a certificate (ss16,20). Courts’ grants are final in that refusals cannot be appealed (s13), but certificates can be vacated by later successful appeals under rules in s15.\n\n- Compliance and application burden on applicants: applicants must secure a judicial certificate (various procedural grounds in ss6–10A), then apply to the Attorney‑General (s16(1)). Appellants seeking relief on inability to collect court‑ordered costs must establish lack of means, undue hardship, or unknown whereabouts (s7(1)(c)–(e)). For payments that might be vacated, written notices about intention to appeal affect whether the Attorney‑General can safely pay and trigger repayment obligations (s17(2)–(3)).\n\n- Executive discretion and safeguards: the Attorney‑General’s discretion to authorise payments is subject to availability of moneys (s16(2)), statutory maximums tied to courts/tribunals (s18), and the risk of vacation (s17). The Attorney‑General may recover payments made on defective assumptions about appeals (s17(3)). Delegation to departmental officers is explicitly allowed (s20).\n\n- Budgetary trade‑offs: payments are limited to amounts authorised and to moneys made available by Parliament (s16(2), s19). The Schedule (referred to in s18) sets prescribed maximums for particular courts or tribunals; those maxima may be adjusted by regulation.\n\n- Beneficiaries and excluded recipients: individuals and parties to proceedings (including legal personal representatives) may receive certificates (s3(2)), but governments, many government authorities, and large or related corporations are excluded (s14). Therefore, the legal mechanism concentrates possible payments on private litigants and excludes many public and corporate recipients.\n\n- Risk of vacating and recovery: certificates granted to respondents or appellants can be vacated if a relevant party later successfully appeals (s15). The Attorney‑General may delay or withhold payment until satisfied a certificate will not be vacated (s17(1)–(2)); where payment is made following a statement that no appeal will be brought and an appeal is later lodged, the Commonwealth may demand repayment and recover it as a debt (s17(3)).\n\nCross‑references and administrative links\n\n- The Act relies on and cross‑references other instruments: the definition of Federal appeal uses specific courts (s3(1)); family law appeals trigger s9 and reference s114UB of the Family Law Act 1975; Administrative Review Tribunal rehearings refer to provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (s10A(1)). The Act also depends on a Schedule prescribing maximum payments (s18) and empowers the Governor‑General to make regulations (s22).\n\nNet mechanical effect on private choice and litigation practice (descriptive)\n\n- The Act creates a two‑step mechanism where courts can recommend Commonwealth reimbursement (through a costs certificate) and the executive decides whether to pay from appropriations. That structure may alter parties’ practical exposure to certain legal costs by creating a potential public funding route for successful litigants in specified circumstances (ss6–10A,16,19). The Act also places administrative and evidentiary burdens on applicants (ss7,16,17) and gives the Attorney‑General discretion to manage payments within budget and statutory caps (ss16–18,20)."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"other","section":"s3(1) definition of 'Territory' and s3(1) definition of 'Federal appeal' para (eb)","severity":"low","reasoning":"The exclusion of the Northern Territory from the 'Territory' definition is deliberate and explained by the carve-outs in s3(3), and paragraph (eb) provides a tailored inclusion. However, it creates genuine interpretive complexity: para (eb) applies only where the NT Supreme Court exercises Commonwealth-conferred jurisdiction other than under an acceptance/administration Act, while para (f) covers 'Territory' Supreme Courts. The interaction requires readers to determine which paragraph applies to NT appeals, and whether a gap exists for NT appeals under Commonwealth acceptance/administration Acts.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The definition of 'Territory' expressly excludes the Northern Territory, yet paragraph (eb) of the 'Federal appeal' definition carves out a special rule for the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory separately, implying it is treated differently from other Territories. This creates an asymmetrical regime where the Northern Territory is simultaneously excluded from the general 'Territory' definition but specifically included in the 'Federal appeal' definition, requiring readers to track two parallel definitional tracks for the one jurisdiction."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"s14(1)(f) and s14(2)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"While not a logical contradiction in formal terms, the failure to index or update the $200,000 threshold over 40+ years produces an absurd practical outcome: the distinction between eligible and ineligible corporations has collapsed. The provision purports to create a meaningful distinction between small and large corporations but the threshold is so outdated as to make the distinction functionally redundant. This is a structural absurdity embedded in the legislative text.","confidence":0.8,"description":"The threshold of $200,000 paid-up capital for excluding corporate applicants has not been updated since 1981. In contemporary terms this threshold is trivially low, meaning virtually any incorporated entity with meaningful commercial activity would be excluded, rendering the corporate eligibility provisions near-meaningless in practice and defeating the evident policy purpose of assisting smaller corporate litigants."},{"type":"other","section":"s7(1) read with s6(1) or (2)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The policy purpose of s7 is to protect appellants who win costs orders that cannot be enforced. However, by tying eligibility to the respondent's own potential entitlement under s6, the section creates a gap: where the respondent is a body corporate excluded under s14(1)(f), the respondent could not apply under s6, so the appellant loses access to s7. The impecunious respondent exception thus fails precisely where corporate respondents are insolvent or otherwise unable to pay.","confidence":0.75,"description":"Section 7(1) grants a certificate to a successful appellant whose respondent cannot pay costs—but the precondition in s7(1)(b) is that the respondent must themselves be 'entitled to apply' for a certificate under s6(1) or (2). This means an appellant can only obtain a certificate under s7 if the respondent would also have been eligible for one. If the respondent is ineligible (e.g., because they are a large corporation under s14), the appellant cannot access s7 relief regardless of the respondent's actual inability to pay."},{"type":"other","section":"s17(2)(b)(ii)","severity":"low","reasoning":"The structure allows Commonwealth funds to be disbursed on the basis of an appellant's subjective belief about a third party's (the respondent's) intentions, which the appellant has little ability to verify. The repayment mechanism in s17(3) mitigates but does not eliminate the structural weakness. The provision creates an asymmetric information problem embedded in the legislative design.","confidence":0.6,"description":"The Attorney-General is entitled to presume a certificate will not be vacated based on a notice from the appellant stating they have 'no reason to believe' the respondent will appeal. This is a remarkably thin evidentiary basis for authorising a Commonwealth payment, as the appellant has no obligation to investigate, no special knowledge of the respondent's intentions, and no legal accountability if the belief turns out to be wrong (beyond the repayment obligation in s17(3))."},{"type":"other","section":"s10A(3) and s13","severity":"low","reasoning":"The need for a separate ouster clause in s10A(3) implies the drafters accepted the ART is not a 'court' within s13. This is legally coherent but highlights that the Act's court-centric framework was imperfectly adapted when the ART jurisdiction was added, requiring a bolt-on provision rather than an integrated amendment.","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 13 provides that an appeal does not lie from a refusal of 'a court' to grant a costs certificate. Section 10A(3) separately provides that an appeal does not lie from a refusal by 'the Tribunal' (the Administrative Review Tribunal). The duplication is harmless but raises the question of why the ART required a separate provision if s13 were intended to cover all refusals—suggesting either s13 was not considered broad enough to cover the Tribunal (not being a 'court'), or the drafters were uncertain, creating an implicit interpretive question about whether the ART is a 'court' for s13 purposes."},{"type":"other","section":"s21(4)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The inconsistent reference point ('commencement of this subsection' vs 'commencement of this Act') is not technically a logical flaw but creates genuine practical uncertainty. Unlike ss21(1)-(3), the operative date for s21(4) cannot be determined from the Act itself, requiring recourse to amending legislation. This is a structural drafting problem that impedes compliance.","confidence":0.72,"description":"Section 21(4) bars costs certificates under s7A(1) for appeals instituted before 'the commencement of this subsection' rather than 'the commencement of this Act' (as used in ss21(1)-(3)). This means s7A was inserted after the original Act's commencement, and s21(4) operates from a different date. However, the Act as published does not specify what date s7A or s21(4) commenced, leaving readers unable to determine the temporal boundary of the exclusion from the face of the Act alone."},{"type":"other","section":"s3(1) definition of 'costs certificate'","severity":"low","reasoning":"Sections 12 and 13 refer to 'court' jurisdiction and court refusals. The definition of 'costs certificate' includes ART certificates. Section 10A(3) separately addresses ART refusals, suggesting the drafters recognised the ART is not a court for s13. But s12 (Chambers jurisdiction) has no ART equivalent, creating a potential gap in the procedural framework for ART certificates.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The definition of 'costs certificate' is defined by reference to the subsections that grant certificates, including s10A(2). However, s10A is headed 'Costs certificates—Administrative Review Tribunal' and the certificate under s10A(1) is granted by the Tribunal, not a court. Yet ss12 and 13 (relating to Chambers jurisdiction and no-appeal rules) are framed around 'courts'. The definition bundles tribunal and court certificates together, creating ambiguity about which procedural provisions apply to ART-granted certificates."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s6(3)(b)","section_b":"s7(1) and s7(2)","confidence":0.78,"description":"Section 6(3)(b) provides that a respondent's costs certificate covers 'any costs incurred by an appellant that have been, or are required to be, paid by the respondent to the appellant... not being costs to which a costs certificate granted under section 7 relates.' Section 7 grants a certificate to the appellant for costs the respondent cannot pay. These two provisions attempt to partition the same costs between two certificates, but the carve-out in s6(3)(b) depends on whether a s7 certificate has been or will be granted—a fact unknown at the time the s6 certificate is granted. This creates a temporal paradox: the scope of the s6 certificate is contingent on a future event (the grant or refusal of a s7 certificate)."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s15(2)","section_b":"s7(1)","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 7(1) grants a certificate to an appellant where the respondent cannot pay costs ordered against them. Section 15(2) provides that such a certificate is vacated if 'the respondent to whom the certificate relates' appeals and succeeds. However, s15(2) refers to 'the respondent to whom the certificate relates' when the certificate under s7(1) is granted to the appellant, not the respondent. The section appears to intend that vacation occurs when the respondent (who is liable for costs) subsequently succeeds on appeal, but the drafting conflates the holder of the certificate with the party to whom it relates, creating ambiguity about the triggering condition."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"s3(1) definition of 'Federal appeal' para (h)","section_b":"s3(1) definition of 'Territory' (excluding Northern Territory) and s3(3)","confidence":0.67,"description":"Paragraph (h) of the 'Federal appeal' definition covers appeals 'to the Supreme Court of a Territory from a judgment of another court of that Territory.' 'Territory' expressly excludes the Northern Territory. Section 3(3) further excludes courts of Western Australia exercising Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands jurisdiction. This means para (h) captures appeals within the ACT and other Territories but not the NT—yet the NT has its own court hierarchy where analogous intra-territory appeals occur. The NT is partially captured by para (eb) (for Commonwealth-jurisdiction cases) but appeals within the NT court hierarchy in non-Commonwealth matters appear to fall outside the 'Federal appeal' definition entirely, creating an unexplained gap."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"s9(1)(b) (referencing s114UB Family Law Act 1975)","section_b":"s6(1) (general costs certificate for respondents)","confidence":0.6,"description":"Section 9 begins 'without limiting section 6' but then sets up conditions (appeal succeeds on question of law AND each party bears own costs under s114UB Family Law Act) that partially overlap with s6(1) (appeal succeeds on question of law). Where a family law appeal succeeds on a question of law and the costs order is made under general principles rather than s114UB, both s6 and s9 may be engaged. The 'without limiting' language suggests concurrent operation, but s9 grants a certificate to the appellant while s6 grants one to the respondent—where both apply to the same appeal on different facts, the interaction is unclear and could result in duplicate certificates for overlapping costs."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"s16(2)","section_b":"s18(2) and s18(2A)","confidence":0.65,"description":"Section 16(2) authorises the Attorney-General to pay 'an amount not exceeding the amount or the sum of the amounts of the costs to which the certificate relates.' Section 18(2) imposes a separate cap at the 'prescribed maximum amount.' Where the prescribed maximum is lower than actual costs, s16(2) permits payment up to actual costs while s18(2) prohibits payment beyond the prescribed maximum. These provisions are not contradictory in outcome (s18 simply overrides as a specific limit) but s16(2) is misleading in suggesting costs quantum is the only ceiling, without cross-referencing s18, potentially causing applicants to misunderstand their entitlements."},{"severity":"low","section_a":"s14(1)(e)","section_b":"s10A(1)","confidence":0.62,"description":"Section 14(1)(e) bars costs certificates to 'an authority of the Commonwealth, of any State or of any Territory.' Section 10A(1) allows any 'party to the proceeding other than the person who made the decision that was subject to the review' to obtain a certificate. In ART proceedings, the decision-maker is typically a Commonwealth authority or officer. The 'other than the person who made the decision' exclusion in s10A(1) tracks the s14(1)(e) exclusion for the decision-maker, but s14(1)(e) is broader—it would also exclude Commonwealth authorities that are not the decision-maker but are parties to the review (e.g., interveners or affected parties that are Commonwealth bodies). The s10A(1) exclusion and s14(1)(e) thus operate on different criteria and may produce inconsistent results depending on the configuration of parties."}]},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"source":"grok-batch-everything"},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 1981 Act was narrowly focused on appeals to the High Court and Federal Court and on abortive trials in superior federal courts. Subsequent amendments have substantially widened its scope to include appeals from State Supreme Courts to the Federal Court in Commonwealth matters, appeals involving both Divisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, specific family-law costs orders, rehearings before the Administrative Review Tribunal, and expanded territorial coverage. The definition of 'Federal appeal' has grown from a handful of limbs to a multi-page list, and new sections (7A, 9, 10A) have been inserted to cover previously unregulated situations."},"complexity_factors":["Extremely broad and heavily amended definition of 'Federal appeal' containing 15 separate paragraphs (a)–(k) plus sub-paragraphs that cross-reference multiple courts and statutes","Seven distinct costs-certificate regimes (ss 6, 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 10A) each with different eligibility triggers, applicant classes and certificate wording","Nested conditional logic in s 7 (lack of means, undue hardship or unknown whereabouts) and s 15 (vacation of certificates upon further successful appeals)","Multiple cross-references to the Family Law Act 1975 (s 9 and s 114UB), Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (s 10A), Corporations Act 2001 (s 14(2)) and Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (s 17(4))","Detailed rules on costs quantification, prescribed maximum amounts via the Schedule, repayment obligations if a certificate is later vacated, and non-appealable refusals"],"plain_english_summary":"**The Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981** lets courts issue 'costs certificates' that recommend the Attorney-General pay some or all of a person's legal costs in specific federal court appeals, new trials, or aborted hearings. These certificates apply when an appeal succeeds on a pure question of law, when a trial must restart because the judge or tribunal member dies, resigns or becomes unable to continue, or in family-law appeals where each side normally pays their own costs. The costs are calculated on a standard 'party and party' basis (the usual amount one side might recover from the other), and there are caps on how much can be paid.\n\nIt protects everyday people and small organisations from being left out of pocket when a case collapses through no fault of their own or when they win on a legal technicality but cannot recover money from the other side (for example, because that side has no assets or has disappeared). Governments, states, territories, big companies worth $200,000 or more in paid-up capital, and bodies related to them cannot get these certificates.\n\nThe law matters because it acts as a limited public safety net for access to justice in federal litigation. Without it, many individuals would simply absorb large legal bills after a mistrial or a successful appeal on law alone. Payments come from annual parliamentary appropriations, not from a dedicated fund, and the Attorney-General has discretion based on available money and statutory limits."},"summary":{"complexity_score":7,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act has expanded from its original 1981 scope over time. Notable additions include: coverage of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Divisions 1 and 2), which did not exist in 1981; inclusion of the Administrative Review Tribunal (replacing the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal) via section 10A; appeals from Supreme Courts of States to the Federal Court (paragraph ea); and appeals involving the Northern Territory Supreme Court exercising Commonwealth jurisdiction (paragraph eb). These amendments reflect significant restructuring of Australia's federal court system over four decades, meaning the Act now covers a substantially broader range of courts and tribunals than originally intended."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple court types and jurisdictions referenced throughout, requiring familiarity with the Australian court hierarchy (High Court, Federal Court, Federal Circuit and Family Court, Territory courts)","Numerous defined terms that interact with each other, including 'Federal appeal' which has 14 distinct sub-categories (paragraphs a through k)","Two-stage process (court certificate then Attorney-General discretion) with no guaranteed payment outcome, creating legal uncertainty","Vacation (cancellation) provisions in section 15 that can unwind payments already made, with repayment obligations","Exclusion criteria in section 14 require understanding of corporate law concepts (related bodies corporate under the Corporations Act 2001)","Cross-references to other legislation including the Family Law Act 1975 and Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024","Costs assessment mechanisms referencing party-and-party costs (a technical legal concept about what types of costs are recoverable)","Transitional and sequencing provisions (sections 11, 15, 21) that require understanding of how appeal chains work","The distinction between the court's discretion to grant a certificate and the Attorney-General's separate discretion to authorise payment adds a layer of complexity most litigants would find confusing","Payment caps tied to a Schedule without the Schedule being reproduced in the body of the Act"],"plain_english_summary":"## Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 — What Does It Do?\n\nThis law creates a government safety net for legal costs in certain federal court proceedings. In plain terms: if you win (or partially win) a federal court case or appeal, but the other side can't pay your legal bills — or there simply is no other side — the government may step in and cover some or all of those costs.\n\n### Who Does This Affect?\n\n**People who might benefit:**\n- Individuals who win federal appeals (cases taken to higher courts) on a point of law\n- People whose court cases were derailed because a judge died, became seriously ill, or otherwise couldn't finish the case\n- Accused persons (people facing criminal charges) who win an appeal and are granted a new trial\n- Parties in family law appeals where each side normally bears their own costs\n- Parties in Administrative Review Tribunal (a body that reviews government decisions) matters that have to be reheard\n\n**People who CANNOT benefit:**\n- The Commonwealth, States, or the Northern Territory (governments can't claim)\n- Government agencies and authorities\n- Large companies with paid-up capital (money invested by shareholders) of $200,000 or more\n- Companies related to those large companies\n\n### How Does It Work?\n\n1. **You apply to the court** for a \"costs certificate\" (an official document saying you deserve government help with your legal bills)\n2. **The court decides** whether to issue the certificate — and crucially, **you cannot appeal** if the court says no\n3. **You then apply to the Attorney-General** (the government's chief law officer) with your certificate\n4. **The Attorney-General decides** whether to actually authorise payment, taking into account how much money is available in the government's budget at the time\n5. **Payment is capped** — there are maximum amounts set out in a Schedule depending on which court was involved\n\n### Important Catches\n- Getting a costs certificate is **not a guarantee of payment** — the Attorney-General has discretion (choice) about whether to pay and how much\n- Certificates can be **cancelled (\"vacated\")** if the other party successfully appeals the judgment later\n- If you've already been paid but the other side then successfully appeals, **you may have to repay the money** to the government\n- The government pays out of its annual budget, so timing and available funds matter\n\n### Bottom Line\nThis Act provides a limited financial backstop for ordinary people caught up in complex federal legal battles where they've done nothing wrong but still can't recover their costs — particularly when judges can't finish cases, when there's no one to pay costs, or when the losing party simply doesn't have the money."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981","history":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981/history","analysis":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/federal-proceedings-costs-act-1981/documents"}}