A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2016] FCA 572

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v

A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 572

File number:	NTD 19 of 2014
Judge:	REEVES J
Date of judgment:	20 May 2016
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Date of last submissions:	5 May 2016
Registry:	Northern Territory
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	Regulator and Consumer Protection
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Star
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Norton Rose Fulbright
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	The First and Second Respondents did not appear
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Mr W Wright appeared in person

ORDERS

NTD 19 of 2014

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Applicant

AND:

A.C.N. 099 814 749 PTY LTD

First Respondent

A.C.N. 072 129 321 PTY LTD
Second Respondent

WAYNE WRIGHT
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	REEVES J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 MAY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Order 1 of the orders dated 22 April 2016 be set aside.

2.The applicant is to reimburse the third respondent for any Court filing fees he paid to file documents in connection with this proceeding.

3.Otherwise, there is no order for costs in this proceeding.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

REEVES J:

1. On 22 April 2016, I ordered that the applicant’s application in this proceeding be dismissed and made the following orders as to costs:

   1.Subject to Orders 2 to 4 below there is no order for costs.

   2.Should any party wish to contend for a different order for costs that party must, within seven (7) days, file and serve a notice stating what order is sought and the basis for seeking it.

   3.In the event that such a notice is filed the opposite party may, within seven (7) days thereafter, file a notice stating why it opposes the order for costs so sought.

   4.The order for costs will then be determined on the papers.

2. As permitted by Order 2, Mr Wright, the third respondent, filed a notice seeking a different order as to costs.  That notice set out 10 items.  With one exception, all of those items contained claims in the nature of compensation or damages which Mr Wright allegedly suffered as a consequence of this proceeding.  For example, the final item claimed “All costs as a result of damage to reputation and personal character. $500,000 tax free.”  The one exception was an item which claimed:  “All costs associated with filing documents with the Federal Court be waived, reimbursed or met with the applicant. $5,000 tax free.”

3. Mr Wright represented himself throughout this proceeding.  He is not a lawyer.  Earlier in the proceeding, he was refused leave to act for the first and second respondents, two companies of which he is the sole director and shareholder.  As a result, they remained unrepresented throughout this proceeding.

4. Costs under s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) are confined to payments made or liabilities incurred for professional legal services. Accordingly, a self-represented litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to any costs for the time spent in the preparation or presentation of his or her case to the Court: see Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 409 and George v Fletcher (Trustee) (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 71 (George) at [15]. Costs are not awarded to compensate a party for any damage he may claim to have suffered as a consequence of being a party to a proceeding before the Court.

5. However, a self-represented litigant is ordinarily entitled to be reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses such as filing fees:  see George at [17]. While Mr Wright has not provided any details of the “costs associated with filing documents”, on the assumption that includes some filing fees, he is entitled to be reimbursed those fees.

6. Accordingly, I order that:

   1.Order 1 of the orders dated 22 April 2016 be set aside.

   2.The applicant is to reimburse the third respondent for any Court filing fees he paid to file documents in connection with this proceeding.

   3.Otherwise, there is no order for costs in this proceeding.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.

Associate:       

Dated:       20 May 2016