Tropoulos v Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 347

Tropoulos v Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 347

Mr Galvin was not a respondent to the terminated complaint and therefore the claim against him was incompetent; the applicant, a lawyer advised by expert lawyers, should have known there was no prospect of success; in these circumstances, indemnity costs are warranted.

Parties
Applicant: Steven Tropoulos; First Respondent: Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd ACN 125 790 605; Second Respondent: Bryan Galvin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application Against Second Respondent
Outcome
Application against the second respondent dismissed; applicant to pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Indemnity Costs, Competency of Proceedings, Discrimination Law
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Indemnity Costs Competency of Proceedings Discrimination Law

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Tropoulos

Applicant

Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd ACN 125 790 605

First Respondent

Bryan Galvin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application Against Second Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application against the second respondent was competent
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity or party/party basis

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Galvin was not a respondent to the terminated complaint and therefore the claim against him was incompetent; the applicant, a lawyer advised by expert lawyers, should have known there was no prospect of success; in these circumstances, indemnity costs are warranted.

Court Disposition

Application against the second respondent dismissed; applicant to pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The application against the second respondent be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent on an indemnity basis.