Bourne v Campbell [1999] FCA 1782

Bourne v Campbell [1999] FCA 1782

The applicant's case was completely hopeless, based on a total misconception of the legislation, and had no substantial prospect of success on the applicant's own version of the facts. The proceedings were therefore instituted without reasonable cause for the purposes of s 347(1), permitting a costs order in favour of the first to eighth respondents. No costs order was made for the Australian Hotels Association or Mr Healey because they injected themselves into the proceedings but took no substantive role.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs in Proceeding Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Election Inquiry / Submissions on Costs After Termination of Inquiry and Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Existing costs order maintained for the first to eighth respondents; no order as to costs for Terence Christopher Healey and the Australian Hotels Association.
Legal Topics
['costs Against Applicant Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 S 347(1)' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'election of President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Hotels Association']
['industrial Law' 'costs' 'election Inquiries'] ['costs Against Applicant Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 S 347(1)' 'proceedings Instituted Without Reasonable Cause' 'election of President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Hotels Association']

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 in Proceeding Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Election Inquiry / Submissions on Costs After Termination of Inquiry and Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs could be awarded against the applicant under s 347(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether the proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's case was completely hopeless, based on a total misconception of the legislation, and had no substantial prospect of success on the applicant's own version of the facts. The proceedings were therefore instituted without reasonable cause for the purposes of s 347(1), permitting a costs order in favour of the first to eighth respondents. No costs order was made for the Australian Hotels Association or Mr Healey because they injected themselves into the proceedings but took no substantive role.

Court Disposition

Existing costs order maintained for the first to eighth respondents; no order as to costs for Terence Christopher Healey and the Australian Hotels Association.

Orders

  • ['As ordered on 5 November 1999, the applicant pay the costs of the first to eighth respondents.' 'There be no order as to the costs of the respondents Terence Christopher Healey and the Australian Hotels Association.']