Campbell v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) [2021] FCA 1413

Campbell v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) [2021] FCA 1413

The applicant was wholly unsuccessful and no public interest, test case, settlement-offer, or other consideration justified departing from the usual costs order. Although the respondents sought indemnity costs from 9 August 2019, their Calderbank offer was uncertain because it required entry into a Deed of Settlement and Release on terms not provided, and their own non-compliance with the Court's order to make a Pt 25 offer also weighed against indemnity costs. The appropriate order was that the applicant pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Dismissal of Applicant's Claims / Determined on the Papers After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis; respondents' claim for indemnity costs rejected.
Legal Topics
['party Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer to Compromise' 'public Interest Litigation' 'test Case' 'racial Discrimination Claim' 'false Imprisonment Claim']
['costs' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['party Party Costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'calderbank Offer' 'offer to Compromise' 'public Interest Litigation' 'test Case' 'racial Discrimination Claim' 'false Imprisonment Claim']

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 Following Dismissal of Applicant's Claims / Determined on the Papers After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant, as the unsuccessful party, should pay the respondents' costs or whether each party should bear their own costs." 'Whether the proceedings involved claims for breaches of human rights with a significant public interest dimension justifying departure from the usual costs order.' 'Whether the proceedings were in the nature of a test case justifying departure from the usual costs order.' "Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant's settlement offers affected the costs discretion." "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis from 9 August 2019 because of the respondents' Calderbank offer of 23 January 2019."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was wholly unsuccessful and no public interest, test case, settlement-offer, or other consideration justified departing from the usual costs order. Although the respondents sought indemnity costs from 9 August 2019, their Calderbank offer was uncertain because it required entry into a Deed of Settlement and Release on terms not provided, and their own non-compliance with the Court's order to make a Pt 25 offer also weighed against indemnity costs. The appropriate order was that the applicant pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party-party basis; respondents' claim for indemnity costs rejected.

Orders

  • ["Subject to any interlocutory cost orders to the contrary, the Applicant is to pay the Respondents' costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis."]