Chen v Monash University (No 2)

Case [2016] FCAFC 93

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chen v Monash University (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 93

Appeal from: Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130
File number: VID 122 of 2015
Judges: BARKER, DAVIES AND MARKOVIC JJ
Date of judgment: 28 June 2016
Catchwords: COSTS – application for lump sum costs under R 40.02 of Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether lump sum costs consistent with s 37M of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) R 40.02(b)
Cases cited:

Anastasia Ualesi and Peti J Ualesi t/as Australian Empire Imports v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26

Beach Petroleum NL and Another v Johnson and Others (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119

Chen v Monash University [2016] FCAFC 66

Chen v Monash University (No 2) [2015] FCA 552

Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3) [2006] FCA 916

Keen v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 2) [2006] FCA 930
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms RM Nelson
Solicitor for the Respondents: Lander & Rogers Lawyers

ORDERS

VID 122 of 2015
BETWEEN:

QIZHI CHEN

Applicant
AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY

First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIS

Second Respondent

GEORGE SIMON

Third Respondent

JUDGES:

BARKER, DAVIES AND MARKOVIC JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

28 JUNE 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Costs in this proceeding be paid by way of a lump sum fixed in the amount $73,770.

2.The sum of $25,000 paid into Court by the applicant as security for costs pursuant to the order of Barker J dated 21 January 2016, be paid to the first respondent in partial satisfaction of those lump sum costs.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. In Chen v Monash University [2016] FCAFC 66, the Court dismissed the amended interlocutory application of the applicant to reinstate her appeal from the orders and judgment of the primary judge in proceedings VID 857 of 2013. The Court made orders to the effect that the applicant’s application be dismissed with costs and the respondents be at liberty to apply for a lump sum costs order within 14 days as well as for orders in respect of the monies earlier paid in by way of security. The amount paid in by way of security was $25,000 pursuant to an order of Barker J made 21 January 2016

  2. The respondents duly sought orders to this effect within the time period specified and now seek orders that:

    (1)the costs be paid by way of a lump sum fixed in the amount of $73,770; and

    (2)the amount of $25,000 paid into Court by the applicant as security for costs pursuant to the order dated 21 January 2016, be paid to…

Continue reading Chen v Monash University (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chen v Monash University (No 2) [2016] FCAFC 93
Case
[2016] FCAFC 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen commenced proceedings against Monash University in the Federal Court seeking damages for alleged discrimination and unlawful termination of employment. The university filed a defence and subsequently, Chen applied for lump sum costs under Rule 40.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The court had to determine whether the lump sum costs were consistent with section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The legal issue was whether the lump sum costs awarded to Chen were appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the case, and whether they complied with the statutory provisions regarding costs in the Federal Court.

The court considered the principles established in previous case law, including the requirement for proportionality between the costs and the nature of the proceedings. It examined the evidence presented by Chen and Monash University regarding the complexity, duration, and nature of the litigation. The court also took into account the applicant's success rate, the conduct of the parties during the proceedings, and the need to ensure just and equitable resolution of the dispute. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the lump sum costs of $73,770 were appropriate in this case.

The court further ordered that $25,000, which had been paid into court by Chen as security for costs, be paid to Monash University in partial satisfaction of the lump sum costs. This decision reflected the court's consideration of the overall fairness and proportionality of the costs awarded, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles. The court's order for the costs to be paid by way of a lump sum, along with the partial satisfaction of the costs from the security paid by Chen, provided a balanced and just resolution to the issue of costs in this matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Costs in this proceeding be paid by way of a lump sum fixed in the amount $73,770.

2. The sum of $25,000 paid into Court by the applicant as security for costs pursuant to the order of Barker J dated 21 January 2016, be paid to the first respondent in partial satisfaction of those lump sum costs.

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.