Baird v State of Queensland No 2

Case [2006] FCAFC 198


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Baird v State of Queensland No 2 [2006] FCAFC 198

COSTS – orders by consent

JAMES STANLEY BAIRD, MARIE CREEK, FRANK TAYLEY, HENRY WALKER, HENRY DEERAL, EDGAR IVAN GIBSON, ANITA KAREN GORDON AND ELLA WOIBO v STATE OF QUEENSLAND
QUD 377 OF 2005

SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ
22 DECEMBER 2006
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 377 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JAMES STANLEY BAIRD
First Appellant

MARIE CREEK
Second Appellant

FRANK TAYLEY
Third Appellant

HENRY WALKER
Fourth Appellant

HENRY DEERAL
Fifth Appellant

EDGAR IVAN GIBSON
Sixth Appellant

ANITA KAREN GORDON
Seventh Appellant

ELLA WOIBO
Eighth Appellant

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

1.There be judgment in favour of James Stanley Baird for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $17,000;

2.There be judgment in favour of Marie Creek for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $45,000;

3.There be judgment in favour of Frank Tayley for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $37,000;

4.There be judgment in favour of Henry Walker for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $45,000;

5.There be judgment in favour of Henry Deeral for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $85,000;

6.There be judgment in favour of Anita Karen Gordon for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $19,800;

7.That the claim of Ella Woibo be dismissed by consent;

8.That the claim of Edgar Ivan Gibson be dismissed;

9.That the respondent provide the apology which it has offered to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh appellants which is in terms as follows:

‘This apology is made in the spirit of reconciliation, with the acknowledgement of past hurts felt by you and your people, and in the hope of a new partnership of Indigenous Queenslanders and the Queensland Government.
On behalf of the Government of Queensland, I express my sincere regret for any distress, personal hurt or humiliation suffered as a result of discrimination to [insert name of appellant] through the non-payment of award wages to you between 1975 and 1986.

The Honourable Warren Pitt MP,
           Minister for Communities, Disability Services Seniors and Youth’.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 377 OF 2005

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JAMES STANLEY BAIRD
First Appellant

MARIE CREEK
Second Appellant

FRANK TAYLEY
Third Appellant

HENRY WALKER
Fourth Appellant

HENRY DEERAL
Fifth Appellant

EDGAR IVAN GIBSON
Sixth Appellant

ANITA KAREN GORDON
Seventh Appellant

ELLA WOIBO
Eighth Appellant

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Respondent

JUDGES:

SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ

DATE:

22 DECEMBER 2006

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. When the Court delivered reasons for judgment in this matter on 17 November 2006, it made the following orders:

    1.The appeal be allowed.

    2.The orders made by the Court on 30 August 2005 be set aside.

    3.The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the primary judge.

  2. Justice Allsop, in his Honour’s reasons for judgment said in par 78:

    ’78      The notice of appeal does not seek the entry of judgment in favour of the appellants who were able to persuade the primary judge of lost wages.  No argument was put on appeal about the primary judge’s calculations as to damages, including his conclusions that two appellants (the sixth and eighth appellants) had not proved any loss.  Nor does the notice of appeal seek declaratory orders.’

  3. Subsequent to the pronouncement of the Full Court’s orders, all of the appellants and the respondent have submitted a joint submission as to the orders which they wish the Court to make to dispose of the proceedings.  All of the parties submit that it would be ordinarily appropriate to remit the matter to his Honour, the primary judge, to deal further with damages, but in this case the appellants and respondent agree as to the orders, the making of which will dispose of the whole proceeding.

  4. Since those proposed orders are the request of all of the parties in the proceedings, it is appropriate for the Court to make the following additional orders, in addition to the orders pronounced on 17 November 2006:

    (a)There be judgment in favour of James Stanley Baird for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $17,000;

    (b)There be judgment in favour of Marie Creek for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $45,000;

    (c)There be judgment in favour of Frank Tayley for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $37,000;

    (d)There be judgment in favour of Henry Walker for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $45,000;

    (e)There be judgment in favour of Henry Deeral for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $85,000;

    (f)There be judgment in favour of Anita Karen Gordon for damages, inclusive of interest, in the sum of $19,800;

    (g)       That the claim of Ella Woibo be dismissed by consent;

    (h)       That the claim of Edgar Ivan Gibson be dismissed;

    (i)That the respondent provide the apology which it has offered to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh appellants which is in terms as follows:

    ‘This apology is made in the spirit of reconciliation, with the acknowledgement of past hurts felt by you and your people, and in the hope of a new partnership of Indigenous Queenslanders and the Queensland Government.
    On behalf of the Government of Queensland, I express my sincere regret for any distress, personal hurt or humiliation suffered as a result of discrimination to [insert name of appellant] through the non-payment of award wages to you between 1975 and 1986.

    The Honourable Warren Pitt MP,
               Minister for Communities, Disability Services Seniors and Youth’

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender, Allsop & Edmonds JJ.

Associate:

Dated:       22 December 2006

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr R Lilley and Mr D Rangiah
Solicitor for the Appellant: Bottoms English Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Murdoch SC and Mr C Murdoch
Solicitor for the Respondent: Crown Solicitor
Date of Submissions on Costs: 15 December 2006
Date of Judgment: 22 December 2006
Details
AGLC
Baird v State of Queensland No 2 [2006] FCAFC 198
Case
[2006] FCAFC 198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal from a decision in Baird v State of Queensland No 2, concerning a class action brought by eight Indigenous Australians against the State of Queensland. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid the correct award wages for their employment between 1975 and 1986, which amounted to racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The case was initially heard by a single judge, whose decisions were later appealed by the plaintiffs. The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the primary judge correctly exercised his discretion to remit the case to the trial judge for further consideration of damages, and whether the trial judge's calculations of damages were correct.

The Full Court found that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion to remit the case for further consideration of damages, as the notice of appeal did not seek the entry of judgment for the appellants or challenge the primary judge's calculations of damages. The Court noted that the appellants and the respondent had reached an agreement on the damages to be awarded, which made it appropriate to make the additional orders proposed by the parties. The Full Court accepted the agreed damages for six of the appellants, dismissed the claims of the two remaining appellants, and ordered the respondent to provide an apology to the six appellants who were awarded damages.

The Federal Court of Australia allowed the appeal and made additional orders in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The Court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of six of the appellants for specified amounts of damages, inclusive of interest. The claims of the two remaining appellants were dismissed. The Court also ordered the respondent to provide an apology to the six appellants who were awarded damages. This case highlights the importance of reaching agreements between parties in complex litigation and the Court's willingness to accept such agreements when appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.