Commonwealth of Australia (As Represented By the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Carr (No.2)
[2017] FCCA 1388
•23 June 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) v CARR (No.2) | [2017] FCCA 1388 |
| Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Determination of costs – whether the successful party should be awarded costs – costs calculated by reference to Pt.1 of Sch.1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.79(2) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.21.02(2)(a), Pt.1 of Sch.1 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) |
| Cases cited: Commonwealth of Australia v Hevers & Anor (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2753 |
| Applicant: | COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) |
| Respondent: | WILLIAM CARR |
| File Number: | SYG 2608 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Smith |
| Hearing date: | Determined on the papers |
| Date of Last Submission: | 9 May 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 June 2017 |
ORDERS
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the amount of $6,840.06.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2608 of 2015
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) |
Applicant
And
| WILLIAM CARR |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondent occupied agricultural property owned by the applicant pursuant to a licence agreement but did not vacate that property after being given a notice of termination of the agreement. The applicant brought proceedings seeking, amongst other things, vacant possession of the property. After a contested hearing, I made orders in the applicant’s favour on 21 December 2015: Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) v Carr [2015] FCCA 3383 (Carr).
The applicant now seeks an order that the respondent pay its costs and disbursements of the proceedings in a fixed amount.
This Court has jurisdiction to award costs in all proceedings before it, other than proceedings in respect of which any other Act provides that costs must not be awarded: s.79(2) Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (FCCA Act). There is no Act that provides that costs must not be awarded.
The discretion to award costs is unfettered, but must be exercised judicially. The usual order is that costs will follow the event. Here, that means that the applicant would ordinarily be entitled to its costs.
The respondent submits that the appropriate order is that each party pay its own costs.
The first basis for this submission is that the Court’s jurisdiction is founded on that of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT) which is a non-costs jurisdiction. As I have observed, these proceedings involved the termination of a licence to occupy agricultural land. The jurisdiction of the Court in respect of that matter was not founded on that of the NCAT, but on the common law. In light of that, this submission has no relevance to these proceedings.
The respondent also relies on the “public interest nature of the matters”. Apart from the question concerning the constitutional validity of the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of Commonwealth tenancy disputes, there was no public interest nature in the proceedings. It was simply a dispute between a land owner and a licensee about the termination of a licence and the right to possession of land. The constitutional issue was decided by earlier proceedings (Hevers) and none of the arguments put forward by the respondent affected the conclusion that jurisdiction was properly conferred on this Court.
The respondent argues that these proceedings set a precedent for later proceedings that might be heard. This point was argued in light of the amendment to the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) (Instrument) that tenants in the Jervis Bay Territory and of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust now fall within the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of Commonwealth tenancy disputes. However, as this matter concerned a licence of agricultural land rather than residential tenancies, this submission has no bearing on the costs of these proceedings.
The third matter relied on was the personal circumstances of the respondent. This submission was made in written submissions filed on behalf of a number of respondents in proceedings involving residential tenancy agreements with the applicant. Perhaps it was for that reason that there was nothing in the submissions that identified any particular circumstance relating to this respondent, even as a licensee, as being pertinent to the question of costs. Rather, the following general submission was made:
If costs are pursued it will cause extreme hardship and stress to many of the Respondents. Tenants live week to week and will need time to save money for such a big move.
Unlike the other matters in respect of which this submission was made, this matter did not involve a residential tenancy. In any event, in the absence of any evidence concerning this respondent, I give the submission no weight. Further, the submission does not address the questions of whether a costs order should be made and, if so, whether it should be set in a particular amount, and in what amount.
The fourth matter raised by the respondent is that the applicant spared no expense in the proceedings. The submission was (without alteration):
[3]The Commonwealth has spared no expense throughout this entire process:
· it has used a full team of barristers from the first Court date after telling residents ‘they don’t need to do anything in relation to obtaining an order” and “they may be invited to a hearing.”
· it turned up to first hearing with substantial affidavit material.
· it expended substantial funds not always linked to legal fees but affecting the cases before the Court: eg it spent $10,000 on a helicopter over the premises without permission, nor asking to do inspection.
· It paid Mr Azar[1] to do an in depth report on the premises, including driving past our premises and taking photos without consent.
This is compared to the residents, who, with very limited funds, have engaged the services of a single barrister and solicitor working on minimum rates to represent all tenants (without such help adequate representation would be impossible).
[1] Simon Azar is a registered real estate valuer who gave evidence for the Commonwealth in the substantive proceedings.
None of this is relevant to the order for costs sought by the applicant. The applicant does not seek costs for a helicopter, or for the report of Mr Azar. The fact that the applicant retained two junior counsel, as well as a number of other lawyers to work on the proceedings generally, reflects the number of proceedings that were brought, and ultimately heard, at the same time. The costs sought are not inflated by that fact. The applicant does seek the costs of retaining counsel who specialises in constitutional matters. That retainer was appropriate given the issues raised and her fees were, relative to her skill and experience, very modest.
Finally, the early preparation of affidavit material is to be encouraged. It enabled the quick and efficient determination of the proceedings and meant that the respondent was aware from very early on in the proceedings of the case he had to meet.
The respondent also makes the following submission:
Some of the Respondents tried to negotiate with the AGS[2] before the matter was heard in court. They were told there were no exceptions to the date they were to vacate. If some degree of consideration had been given to negotiating with long term tenants instead of a heavy-handed approach there may have been no need for litigation. Tenants had no option other than before the FCCA to have their say. The Commonwealth commenced action against the tenants before the date to vacate.
[2] Australian Government Solicitor.
There is nothing before the Court either to support the factual assertions in that submission or to link any of them to the respondent. In any event, the fact remains that the respondent could have negotiated with the applicant even after commencement of the proceedings. He did not do so.
In his written submissions, the respondent then states:
Questions were raised regarding the Commonwealth Tenancy Dispute Instrument in parliament regarding the Human Rights. The parliamentary committee observed: ‘The committee therefore considers that the ability of the Federal Circuit Court to determine the date for tenants to vacate premises limits the right to an adequate standard of living. As set out above, the statement of compatibility does not sufficiently justify that limitation for the purpose of international human rights law. The committee therefore seeks the advice of the Attorney-General as to:
whether there is reasoning or evidence that establishes that the stated objective addresses a pressing or substantial concern or whether the proposed changes are otherwise aimed at achieving a legitimate objective;
whether there is a rational connection between the limitation and that objective; and
whether the limitation is a reasonable and proportionate measure for the achievement of that objective.
Powers when executing orders made by the Court’
This submission is irrelevant to the question of costs. It is not clear how the Instrument referred to in the submission might be incompatible with the respondent’s human rights and, even if it were, what domestic law embodies those rights and how it might affect the exercise of the power to award costs in contested proceedings.
Finally, the respondent says that he should have his legal costs reimbursed because, had the proceedings been in NCAT he would not have had to pay ongoing legal expenses. Once again, this submission was referable only to proceedings which concerned residential tenancies. It is irrelevant to these proceedings which could never have been brought in NCAT.
The applicant has asked for an order for costs in a set amount. The Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (Rules) expressly provide for such an order: r.21.02(2)(a). It is appropriate to make such an order in order to avoid expense and delay that might be brought about by an order that costs be taxed: Scott (Trustee), in the matter of Price (Bankrupt) [2011] FCA 1478; 10 ABC (NS) 59 at [31].
The amount of costs sought by the applicant is based on the following matters:
a)this was one of 13 proceedings between the applicant and tenants or licensees of property owned by the Commonwealth that involved similar issues;
b)the 13 proceedings involved similar preparation and were heard at the same time on 18 and 19 November 2015;
c)the scale amounts set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Rules for the work undertaken in respect of these proceedings are claimed and, where that work was undertaken in respect of a number of proceedings, a proportion of the costs for that work is claimed in respect of the respondents in each proceeding (that is, the total amount divided by the number of proceedings);
d)calculated in the way set out in [20](c) above, the amount of costs claimed in respect of these proceedings amounts to $4,709.71;
e)disbursements of $1,930.35 in total are claimed including counsel fees in respect of constitutional arguments, transcripts, court fees, service, printing and searches. This amount is calculated in the same way as the costs in [20](c) above; and
f)costs of $2,600 incurred on the question of costs, again divided equally amongst the respondents in each proceeding making $200 each.
Given the similarity of the issues in each of the proceedings and the time and costs involved in the taxation of costs, I accept that it is appropriate to make an order for costs in a set amount and to calculate the relevant amount by dividing the total costs and disbursements by the relevant number of proceedings and to make adjustments in respect of any proceedings in which additional costs were incurred.
The separate items of work undertaken, and the scale amounts for those items were identified in the applicant’s written submissions on costs. The respondent did not take issue with any of those matters. I accept both that the work was undertaken and that the amounts claimed were referable to the correct item in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Rules.
I also accept on the evidence that the disbursements claimed by the applicant were reasonably incurred in connection with the proceedings and that it is appropriate to order an amount of $2,600 overall in respect of the question of costs and so $200 in respect of this respondent.
For those reasons, I will order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs set in the amount of $6,840.06.
I certify that the preceding 24 (twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Smith
Date: 23 June 2017
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Appeal
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Judicial Review
0
2
5