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 – citedDate 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
ApplicantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE 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
ApplicantAND: MONASH UNIVERSITY
First RespondentCHRIS DAVIES
Second RespondentGEORGE SIMON
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
5 JUNE 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2015] FCA 552
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.