© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2005] FCA 1408
Federal Court of Australia
2005-09-30
Sundberg J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REASONS FOR ORDERS 1 On 22 September 2005, in Rio Tinto Ltd v Commissioner for Taxation [2005] FCA 1335 (the reasons), I ordered that on or before 29 September 2005 the parties bring in short minutes of orders to reflect the reasons together with any submissions as to the costs of the motion notice of which was filed by the respondent on 1 July 2005. The parties have not been able to agree upon the appropriate orders. Each has submitted draft orders for my consideration, and made written submissions as to costs. Having considered the draft orders and those submissions, I now give my reasons for the orders that I have made. 2 Order 1 is uncontroversial. It appears in both sets of draft orders. 3 Though it is not included in the respondent's draft orders, Order 3 is also uncontroversial. The applicant submitted that it should be included in order "to avoid any doubt that the issues there described have been disposed of". I agree. 4 I had some doubt as to the practicality of each proffered version of Order 2. In my opinion, Order 2 is a workable compromise.
5 Finally, I think it appropriate that I make no order as to costs. (That was the respondent's position. The applicant submitted that I should reserve costs, alternatively that the costs of each issue dealt with in the reasons be awarded to the successful party on that issue.) First, reserved costs tend to become "lost" in the totality of the costs in significant litigation such as the instant proceedings. Secondly, the issues dealt with in the reasons were discrete issues of an interlocutory nature. It is desirable that such costs be dealt with when the matter is fresh in the minds of the Court and the parties, rather than deferring them to a later date. Thirdly, it would be extremely difficult for a taxing officer to apportion costs between the various issues dealt with in the reasons. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sundberg.
Associate: Dated: 30 September2005 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr JW de Wijn QC and Mr SW Steward
Solicitor for the Applicants: Allens Arthur Robinson
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr BJ Sullivan SC and Mr RS Hollo
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 24 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 22 September 2005
Date of Written Submissions on Orders: 29 September 2005
Date of Reasons for Orders: 30 September2005
Rio Tinto Ltd
Commissioner of Taxation