Walsh v Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 7460) (No 3) [2017] FCA 1203

Walsh v Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 7460) (No 3) [2017] FCA 1203

Given the mixed outcomes, substantial unsuccessful defences by respondents, reasonableness of refusing settlement offers due to overreaching deed terms, and the conduct of parties in the litigation, costs should be apportioned such that the applicant pays 20% of the first respondent’s costs; the first respondent pays 20% of the applicant’s costs; and the second respondent pays 40% of the applicant’s costs. Enforcement of costs against the applicant is stayed pending satisfaction of costs/damages owed to her.

Parties
Applicant: Alexandra Jane Walsh; First Respondent: Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 7460); Second Respondent: Priscilla Magdalene Larkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling
Outcome
Costs orders made on an issues basis with specific apportionment; certain previous order varied; execution of costs order against applicant stayed pending satisfaction of costs/damages owing to her.
Legal Topics
Costs, Victimisation, Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Compensation
Employment & Industrial Relations Costs Victimisation Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandra Jane Walsh

Applicant

Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 7460)

First Respondent

Priscilla Magdalene Larkins

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs between parties after mixed success on claims of victimisation and settlement offers
  2. 2 Appropriate apportionment of costs given distinct successful and unsuccessful claims

Ratio Decidendi

Given the mixed outcomes, substantial unsuccessful defences by respondents, reasonableness of refusing settlement offers due to overreaching deed terms, and the conduct of parties in the litigation, costs should be apportioned such that the applicant pays 20% of the first respondent’s costs; the first respondent pays 20% of the applicant’s costs; and the second respondent pays 40% of the applicant’s costs. Enforcement of costs against the applicant is stayed pending satisfaction of costs/damages owed to her.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made on an issues basis with specific apportionment; certain previous order varied; execution of costs order against applicant stayed pending satisfaction of costs/damages owing to her.

Orders

  • The applicant to pay 20% of the first respondent's costs, such costs to be agreed or taxed.
  • First respondent's costs to be quantified on basis that total costs incurred jointly by both respondents are attributable equally.