FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1412
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and MORTIMER J PEACOCK N40 of 2000
MORTIMER J PEACOCK v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA N657 of 2000
WILCOX J SYDNEY 9 OCTOBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N40 of 2000
BETWEEN:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Applicant
AND:
BETWEEN:
AND:
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent
And
MORTIMER J PEACOCK Second Respondent
MORTIMER J PEACOCK N657 of 2000 Applicant
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent
And
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Second Respondent
JUDGE:
WILCOX J
DATE:
9 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J: When I delivered judgment in these matters on 17 August 2000, I reserved the matter of costs. I indicated a tentative view that, having regard to the mixed fortunes of the parties, the appropriate course might be to make no order for costs; but I said I would consider on its merits any application that might be made.
Both parties accept that there ought to be no order for costs in respect of the two proceedings determined on 17 August – matters N40 of 2000 and N657 of 2000. However, the Commonwealth seeks orders in respect of two earlier proceedings commenced by Mr Peacock but subsequently discontinued. They are matters N679 of 1999 and N1022 of 1999.
The former proceeding was brought under the Workplace Relations Act1996; so costs could be awarded in that proceeding only if I was satisfied it was brought without reasonable cause. I have no basis for reaching that conclusion.
The second proceeding was commenced before completion of the inquiry undertaken by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It was, in effect, overtaken by the Commission’s decision. The relevant costs are likely to be small, but whatever their amount I do not think I should order Mr Peacock to pay them. Mr Peacock acted reasonably in discontinuing that proceeding in the light of the Commission’s decision.
Having regard to the whole of the circumstances, the appropriate course is to leave each party to pay its or his own costs of all four proceedings. In relation to each matter, I exercise the discretion of the Court by determining that there be no order for costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.
Associate:
Dated: 9 October 2000
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia:
R M Henderson and D Godwin
Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia:
Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for Mr M J Peacock:
C Ronalds and S Beckett
Date of Hearing:
Date of Judgment:
26 July 2000
9 October 2000
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 1412
Case
[2000] FCA 1412
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Commonwealth, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and Mortimer J Peacock were involved in a dispute over costs. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Commonwealth sought an order for costs in relation to two earlier proceedings brought by Mr Peacock that had been discontinued, while the other parties argued for no order for costs.
The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to make any orders for costs in the proceedings, particularly in light of the fact that the two earlier proceedings brought by Mr Peacock had been discontinued. The court had to consider the merits of the applications for costs in light of the mixed fortunes of the parties and the circumstances of each case.
The court considered the circumstances of each proceeding and concluded that it was appropriate to leave each party to pay its or his own costs of all four proceedings. The court found that there was no basis for awarding costs in the earlier proceeding brought under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and that Mr Peacock had acted reasonably in discontinuing the other proceeding in light of the Commission’s decision. The court exercised its discretion by determining that there be no order for costs in relation to any of the proceedings.
No orders for costs were made in relation to any of the proceedings.