Commonwealth of Australia v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

[2000] FCA 1412

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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