Souraki Azad v Mithila Family Trust t/as Rockingham GP (No 2) [2023] FCA 693

Souraki Azad v Mithila Family Trust t/as Rockingham GP (No 2) [2023] FCA 693

No costs order was warranted in favour of the first to third respondents because the application against them was properly treated as a Fair Work Act claim, the applicants were self-represented, the Court had not yet explained the appropriate procedure to them, and the requirements of s 570 were not demonstrated. AHPRA was entitled to costs because the claim against it was an entirely distinct claim unrelated to the Fair Work dispute and it was justified in seeking legal advice after being served, but the costs were capped because the relief sought against AHPRA was extremely unlikely to be granted urgently and a more modest response would have been reasonable. No indemnity costs were...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Arising From Urgent Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in the Fair Work Division / Determined on the Papers After Urgent Hearing on 1 May 2023
Outcome
AHPRA awarded capped costs against the first applicant; no costs order made for the first to third respondents; no indemnity costs order made.
Legal Topics
['fair Work No Costs Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'urgent Application Before Starting Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs Discretion' 'indemnity Costs']
['employment and Industrial Relations' 'costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['fair Work No Costs Jurisdiction' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'urgent Application Before Starting Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigants' 'costs Discretion' 'indemnity Costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Arising From Urgent Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in the Fair Work Division / Determined on the Papers After Urgent Hearing on 1 May 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be ordered against the applicants after urgent injunctive relief was not granted against the first to third respondents and the application against AHPRA was dismissed or not pressed.' 'Whether s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) precluded or limited a costs order in favour of the first to third respondents.' 'Whether AHPRA, as proposed fourth respondent, should receive costs notwithstanding that the claim against it was not a Fair Work proceeding.' 'Whether any costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

No costs order was warranted in favour of the first to third respondents because the application against them was properly treated as a Fair Work Act claim, the applicants were self-represented, the Court had not yet explained the appropriate procedure to them, and the requirements of s 570 were not demonstrated. AHPRA was entitled to costs because the claim against it was an entirely distinct claim unrelated to the Fair Work dispute and it was justified in seeking legal advice after being served, but the costs were capped because the relief sought against AHPRA was extremely unlikely to be granted urgently and a more modest response would have been reasonable. No indemnity costs were...

Court Disposition

AHPRA awarded capped costs against the first applicant; no costs order made for the first to third respondents; no indemnity costs order made.

Orders

  • ['The first applicant do pay the costs of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency of and incidental to these proceedings, such costs to be assessed by a registrar if not agreed on the basis that the assessed costs shall not exceed the amount of $2,750 (inclusive of GST).' 'There be no order as to the...