Cooper v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

[1999] FCA 813

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 813

COSTS - application for costs to be awarded in exception to the rule that costs ought to follow the event

Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) 1992, s 122

COOPER v HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION & ANOR

NG 582 OF 1998

MADGWICK J
18 JUNE 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	IAN COOPER Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent
COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 582 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	IAN COOPER Applicant
AND:	HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION First Respondent
COFFS HARBOUR COUNCIL Second Respondent

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	18 JUNE 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR ORDER

MADGWICK J

1. On 4 March 1999 I handed down my reasons for decision in this matter.  I held that the application was successful because the first respondent, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“HREOC”) had erred in law.  Consequently, I ordered that the matter be remitted to HREOC for determination according to law.  The only issue now to be determined is one of costs.

2. It is submitted by the second respondent, the Coffs Harbour Council (“the Council”), that in order to do justice to the parties in this matter the Court, under its broad discretion to award costs, pursuant to s 43 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), ought to order HREOC to pay the applicant’s costs or in the alternative make no order as to costs.

3. It is trite to state that in the absence of special circumstances costs ought to follow the event – Ritter v Godfrey (1920) 2 KB 47, Othman v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1995] FCA 326.

4. The Council argues that there is an injustice in its being ordered to pay costs of proceedings necessitated by a legal error made by HREOC.  The Council could however have consented to the relief granted and acknowledged the legal point vindicated by the Court in granting that relief.  This it did not do.  There is no reason to part from the usual rule.  Costs will follow the event.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:             18 June 1999

Solicitor for the Applicant:	P Bately of Legal Aid Commission
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	W Langler of Murray Backhouse Turner
Date of Order:	18 June 1999