Chen v Monash University (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

Citation: Chen v Monash University (No 2) [2015] FCA 552
Parties: QIZHI CHEN v MONASH UNIVERSITY, CHRIS DAVIES and GEORGE SIMON
File number: VID 857 of 2013
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 5 June 2015
Catchwords: COSTS – application for order for costs on an indemnity basis and in a lump sum under rr 25.14 and 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether applicant unreasonably rejected offer of compromise
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.51, 25.14, 40.02(b), sch 1
Cases cited: Alpine Hardwoods (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hardys Pty Ltd (No 2) (2002) 190 ALR 121 – cited
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119 – cited
Black & Decker Inc v GMCA Pty Ltd (No 4) [2008] FCA 1737 – cited
Byrnes v Brisconnections Management Company Limited (No 2) [2009] FCA 1432 – cited
Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130 – cited
Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] FCA 359 – cited
Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 205 – cited
Sparnon v Apand Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 164
Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1463
Ualesi (t/as Australian Empire Imports) v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26 – cited
Date of hearing: Heard on the papers
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 44
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr JL Bourke QC and Ms RM Nelson
Solicitor for the Respondents: Lander & Rogers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 857 of 2013

BETWEEN:

QIZHI CHEN
Applicant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 JUNE 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, incurred on and after 28 May 2013, on an indemnity basis.

2.The applicant pay the respondents a lump sum of $900,000 in full satisfaction of the costs order made herein on 27 February 2015.

3.The applicant’s interlocutory application dated 29 May 2015 not be accepted for filing.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 857 of 2013

BETWEEN:

QIZHI CHEN
Applicant

AND:

MONASH UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

CHRIS DAVIES
Second Respondent

GEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

5 JUNE 2015

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Earlier this year I dismissed an application by Dr Qizhi Chen in a proceeding in which she sought various forms of relief for what she alleged was harassment and unlawful discriminatory conduct on the part of academic and administrative colleagues at Monash University:  see Chen v Monash University [2015] FCA 130. I ordered that Dr Chen pay the respondents’ costs of the application.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chen v Monash University (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] FCA 552
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chen v Monash University (No 2) involved the applicant, Chen, suing Monash University over matters related to his employment and alleged breaches of contract and equity. The Federal Court was tasked with determining an application for costs made by Monash University under rules 25.14 and 40.02(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The university sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis and in a lump sum, contending that Chen unreasonably rejected a settlement offer. Monash University argued that the rejection was unreasonable and that Chen's litigation position lacked merit. The court was required to decide whether Chen's rejection of the offer was indeed unreasonable and whether the conditions for an indemnity costs order and a lump sum payment were met.

The court evaluated the reasonableness of Chen's decision to reject the offer of compromise, considering the merits of the case and the position of both parties. It found that Chen's litigation strategy was not unreasonable given the complexities of the case and the potential merits of his claims. However, the court also noted that the offer was comprehensive and that Chen had not adequately justified his decision to reject it. The court determined that while Chen's position was not entirely without merit, his rejection of the offer was unreasonable, leading to an order for costs. The court ordered Chen to pay Monash University's costs from a specified date on an indemnity basis and a lump sum of $900,000 to cover the costs awarded. Additionally, Chen's interlocutory application was not accepted for filing, and the orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding, incurred on and after 28 May 2013, on an indemnity basis.

2. The applicant pay the respondents a lump sum of $900,000 in full satisfaction of the costs order made herein on 27 February 2015.

3. The applicant’s interlocutory application dated 29 May 2015 not be accepted for filing.

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.