Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Boatman

[2004] FCA 995

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Boatman [2004] FCA 995

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v GRAEME BOATMAN AND VALERIE KENNEDY
ACD 13 OF 2004

GYLES J
13 JULY 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 13 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
APPLICANT

AND:

GRAEME BOATMAN
FIRST RESPONDENT

VALERIE KENNEDY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 JULY 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application by the respondents for costs to be paid on an indemnity basis is refused.

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	ACD 13 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
APPLICANT

AND:

GRAEME BOATMAN
FIRST RESPONDENT

VALERIE KENNEDY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	13 JULY 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR RULING

1. In my opinion the situation is not appropriate for an award of indemnity costs.  I say that for two reasons.  The first is, as counsel for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has put, that certainly a significant element in the matter has been the event that took place in Court on 25 June.  The legal cloud that that cast upon the circumstances needed to be considered.  The second reason is that, although I have come to a clear view about the matter, the argument that succeeded was only one of a number of arguments advanced, and, having in mind the relative novelty of this legislation, I do not think it was inappropriate that CASA not give in to the notice of motion.

2. However, I should indicate for the benefit of the taxing authorities that in my opinion there is no doubt that it was appropriate to have senior counsel involved for the respondents in this matter at all times from 25 June onwards.  There were serious issues for the individuals involved which, involving as they did this novel legislation, required close attention to the matter.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Ruling herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:            30 July 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	I Harvey
Solicitor for the Applicant:	A Anastasi
Counsel for the Respondents:	J Langmead SC
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Grundy Maitland & Co
Date of Hearing:	13 July 2004
Date of Ruling:	13 July 2004