Fetherson v Peninsula Health (No. 2) [2004] FCA 594

Fetherson v Peninsula Health (No. 2) [2004] FCA 594

The Federal Court, applying the general rule, may exercise its discretion to award costs to the successful party under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) unless good reason to the contrary is shown; no public interest or respondent conduct factors warrant departing from this principle in the present case.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Graham John Fetherston; First Respondent: Peninsula Health; Second Respondent: Dr John Botha; Third Respondent: Associate Professor David Langton; Fourth Respondent: Dr Peter Bradford; Fifth Respondent: Mr Michael Dawson-Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Stay on the order for costs is revoked; Applicant to pay respondents' costs of submissions except costs for photocopies supplied on 10 May 2004.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Disability Discrimination Act, Judicial Discretion in Costs
Discrimination Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Disability Discrimination Act Judicial Discretion in 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Graham John Fetherston

Applicant

Peninsula Health

First Respondent

Dr John Botha

Second Respondent

Associate Professor David Langton

Third Respondent

Dr Peter Bradford

Fourth Respondent

Mr Michael Dawson-Smith

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's jurisdiction under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is a 'no costs' jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether public interest factors warrant departure from the usual order as to costs
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents should deprive them of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court, applying the general rule, may exercise its discretion to award costs to the successful party under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) unless good reason to the contrary is shown; no public interest or respondent conduct factors warrant departing from this principle in the present case.

Court Disposition

Stay on the order for costs is revoked; Applicant to pay respondents' costs of submissions except costs for photocopies supplied on 10 May 2004.

Orders

  • The stay on the order for costs made on 23 April 2004 is revoked.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the respondents' submissions, except for the costs of the photocopies supplied on 10 May 2004.