Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3)[2006] FCA 916

Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3)[2006] FCA 916

Given that the respondents were successful in defending the proceeding and there were no factors justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event, and in light of the substantial logistical and practical difficulties in taxing costs against an imprisoned and unrepresented party, the Court exercised its discretion to award costs in favour of the respondents, fixing those costs as gross sums pursuant to Order 62 rule 4(2)(c) at amounts considered reasonable and properly supported by the evidence of the respondents' costs consultant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs awarded to respondents, fixed in lump sums.
Legal Topics
['lump Sum Costs Order' 'party/party Costs' 'federal Court Rules' 'discretionary Exercise of Costs Powers']
['costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['lump Sum Costs Order' 'party/party Costs' 'federal Court Rules' 'discretionary Exercise of Costs Powers']

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 / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded to the Commonwealth respondents and Mr Price; whether costs should be fixed in a gross (lump) sum under Order 62 rule 4(2)(c); appropriate quantification of the gross sum costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the respondents were successful in defending the proceeding and there were no factors justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event, and in light of the substantial logistical and practical difficulties in taxing costs against an imprisoned and unrepresented party, the Court exercised its discretion to award costs in favour of the respondents, fixing those costs as gross sums pursuant to Order 62 rule 4(2)(c) at amounts considered reasonable and properly supported by the evidence of the respondents' costs consultant.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to respondents, fixed in lump sums.

Orders

  • ['The applicant pay to the respondents Donald Bartley, John Growder, Geoffrey Seymour and the Commonwealth of Australia their costs of this proceeding, fixed pursuant to O 62 r 4(2)(c) in the gross sum of $284,945.' 'The applicant pay to the respondent Henry Price his costs of this proceeding, fixed pursuant to O 62...