Bromet v Oddie

[2002] FCA 1574

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bromet v Oddie [2002] FCA 1574

FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET v GROUP CAPTAIN STEPHEN JOHN ODDIE, WING COMMANDER DIANE JENSEN, AIR MARSHAL ALLAN GRANT HOUSTON
A3 of 2002

FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET v GROUP CAPTAIN I J MEYN
A16 of 2002

FINN J
18 DECEMBER 2002
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY		A3 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET
APPLICANT

AND:

GROUP CAPTAIN STEPHEN JOHN ODDIE
FIRST RESPONDENT

WING COMMANDER DIANE JENSEN
SECOND RESPONDENT

AIR MARSHAL ALLAN GRANT HOUSTON
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY		A3 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET APPLICANT
AND:	GROUP CAPTAIN I J MEYN in his capacity as Director of Personnel Officers – Air Force RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 DECEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

There be no order as to costs in either application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY		A3 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET
APPLICANT

AND:

GROUP CAPTAIN STEPHEN JOHN ODDIE
FIRST RESPONDENT

WING COMMANDER DIANE JENSEN
SECOND RESPONDENT

AIR MARSHAL ALLAN GRANT HOUSTON
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	18 DECEMBER 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY			A3 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	FLIGHT LIEUTENANT MARCUS ROBERT DAVID BROMET APPLICANT
AND:	GROUP CAPTAIN I J MEYN in his capacity as Director of Personnel Officers – Air Force RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 DECEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In giving my decision in this matter on 16 September 2002 dismissing both applications I made no order as to costs, though I reserved the right of the respondents to make a costs application.  I did indicate at the time that, notwithstanding the ordinary practice followed in this Court of awarding costs to the successful party on a party and party basis:  see generally Re Wilcox;  Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 141 ALR 727; I would need to be satisfied that this was a proper case in which to adhere to that practice.

2. The respondent’s subsequently applied for costs.  The essence of their submission is that notwithstanding the criticisms made by me of the decision-making processes in this case and the maladministration revealed, a reasonable offer of compromise was made on 8 August 2002 (in the form of an offer to make a fresh decision in relation to the unsuitability report) after the respondents had made plain the bases upon which the various decisions impugned in this proceeding were said to have been taken.  In consequence they claim their costs in their entirety, or else those following the offer of 8 August 2002.  They also claim separately…