Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2)

Case [2018] FCA 1237

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2018] FCA 1237

File number: WAD 630 of 2017
Judge: BARKER J
Date of judgment: 17 August 2018
Catchwords: COSTS – where costs should follow the event – where proceeding against the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police dismissed – entitled to costs
Date of hearing: 3 and 4 April 2018
Date of last submissions: 19 June 2018
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 7
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Bruckner with Mr RM Johnson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Zilkens Lawyers
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms K Stern SC with Mr D Hume
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Respondents: Mr S Vandongen SC with Mr JE Scovell
Solicitor for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Solicitor for the Tenth and Eleventh Respondents: Allens

ORDERS

WAD 630 of 2017
BETWEEN:

ALLEN CARATTI

Applicant
AND:

COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

First Respondent

GH1 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) ACN 099 191 714

Second Respondent

WILLIAM HARRIS AND ROBERT KIRMAN AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF GH1 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)  (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BARKER J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BARKER J:

  1. This judgment deals with the question of costs as between the applicant, Mr Allen Caratti, and the first respondent, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. 

  2. Following the delivery of the primary judgment, the proceeding commenced by Mr Caratti was dismissed.  I made the following order as to costs on 22 June 2018:

    (2)The applicant pay the costs of the respondents, save for the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.

    (3)As to the costs of the first respondent:

    (a)the applicant to file submissions by 4pm, 27 June 2018 as to why the applicant should not be ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent;

    (b)following which the first respondent be at liberty to file reply submissions by 4pm 2 July 2018; and

    (c)the Court will determine the question of cost on the papers.

  3. The first respondent duly put on submissions as to why the first respondent should be entitled to a costs order as against the applicant.

  4. In short, the first respondent submitted that costs should follow the event and that no reason had been shown as to why the Court should make any other order.

  5. In the event, no submissions were filed on behalf of Mr Caratti as to why he should not pay the costs of the first respondent.

  6. In the circumstances, and in any event, I rule that costs should follow the event and there are no circumstances that suggest a different order should be made.  The first respondent participated in the proceeding and, the proceeding against it having been dismissed, is entitled to costs.

    ORDER

  7. The Court orders that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Barker.

Associate:

Dated:        17 August 2018


SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

WAD 630 of 2017

Respondents

Fourth Respondent:

MNWA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 717 177

Fifth Respondent:

WILLIAM HARRIS AND ROBERT KIRMAN AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF MNWA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Sixth Respondent:

I.M.E. NOMINEES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 107 942 058

Seventh Respondent:

WILLIAM HARRIS AND ROBERT KIRMAN AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF I.M.E. NOMINEES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Eighth Respondent:

ACN 142 745 337 PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Ninth Respondent:

WILLIAM HARRIS AND ROBERT KIRMAN AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF ACN 142 745 337 PTY LTD

Tenth Respondent:

WHITBY LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 115 233 193

Eleventh Respondent:

WILLIAM HARRIS AND ROBERT KIRMAN AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF WHITBY LAND COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Details
AGLC
Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2018] FCA 1237
Case
[2018] FCA 1237
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) involved a legal dispute between the applicant, Caratti, and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The proceedings arose from an earlier matter concerning allegations of misconduct by Caratti during his tenure with the AFP, which culminated in his dismissal. This second proceeding was a legal challenge against the decision to dismiss him and the manner in which it was carried out. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to costs following the dismissal of his proceeding against the Commissioner of the AFP. This hinged on the principle that costs should generally follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful party is usually ordered to pay the costs of the successful party. However, the court had to consider whether an exception applied in this case, given the nature of the proceeding and the public interest considerations involved.

The court held that, despite the dismissal of the proceeding, the applicant was entitled to costs as the Commissioner had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual rule. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that public officials, including those within the AFP, act within the bounds of the law and are accountable for their actions. The principle that costs should follow the event was deemed to apply, barring any exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to the costs of the proceeding.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the Commissioner, to be assessed if not agreed. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the principle that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, costs should follow the event in legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.

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

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.