Knowles v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 1003

Knowles v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 1003

It is just and appropriate that costs orders be made in favour of respondents, as applicants' claims had no reasonable prospects of success and respondents acted reasonably in seeking summary dismissal. Lump sum costs orders are appropriate, with discounts reflecting early termination, proportionality, and public interest element. All applicants are jointly and severally liable.

Parties
First Applicant: Cienna Knowles; Second Applicant: John Harding; Third Applicant: Harding Electrical Pty Limited; Fourth Applicant: Murat Temel; Fifth Applicant: Michael Temel Hair Pty Limited; Sixth Applicant: Antoine Sandroussi; Seventh Applicant: Mikailah Lehmann; Eighth Applicant: Serafine Nichols; Ninth Applicant: Alison Zerk; First Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Second Respondent: State of New South Wales; Third Respondent: State of Victoria; Fourth Respondent: State of Tasmania; Fifth Respondent: State of Western Australia; Sixth Respondent: Northern Territory of Australia; Seventh Respondent: State of Queensland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Summary Judgment / Post Summary Judgment; Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of respondents; applicants jointly and severally liable for lump sums.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Judgment, Public Interest Litigation, Crowdfunding, Joint and Several Liability
Administrative and Constitutional Law Human Rights Costs Summary Judgment Public Interest Litigation Crowdfunding Joint and Several Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cienna Knowles

First Applicant

John Harding

Second Applicant

Harding Electrical Pty Limited

Third Applicant

Murat Temel

Fourth Applicant

Michael Temel Hair Pty Limited

Fifth Applicant

Antoine Sandroussi

Sixth Applicant

Mikailah Lehmann

Seventh Applicant

Serafine Nichols

Eighth Applicant

Alison Zerk

Ninth Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia

First Respondent

State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

State of Victoria

Third Respondent

State of Tasmania

Fourth Respondent

State of Western Australia

Fifth Respondent

Northern Territory of Australia

Sixth Respondent

State of Queensland

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Summary Judgment / Post Summary Judgment; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs be awarded to the respondents following summary judgment?
  2. 2 Is a lump sum costs order appropriate?
  3. 3 Should public interest or applicants' financial circumstances affect costs discretion?

Ratio Decidendi

It is just and appropriate that costs orders be made in favour of respondents, as applicants' claims had no reasonable prospects of success and respondents acted reasonably in seeking summary dismissal. Lump sum costs orders are appropriate, with discounts reflecting early termination, proportionality, and public interest element. All applicants are jointly and severally liable.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of respondents; applicants jointly and severally liable for lump sums.

Orders

  • Applicants pay respondents' costs in the following lump sums: Commonwealth $50,000; State of New South Wales $39,023; State of Victoria $50,000; State of Tasmania $15,000; State of Western Australia $20,000; Northern Territory of Australia $20,000; State of Queensland $20,000.
  • Each applicant jointly and severally liable for each lump sum costs order.