FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Corcoran v Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 864
COSTS – Order 62A rule 1 of Federal Court Rules – claim of direct and indirect discrimination in relation to Independent Travel Criteria imposed by airline respondent – criteria require disabled passengers who cannot comply to fly with carer – applicants seek maximum costs order under O 62A r 1 – factors relevant to Court’s discretion – public interest in determination of issues – public interest alone not decisive – arguable case – novel questions raised – application brought in timely manner – no financial benefit to applicants in bringing proceedings – applicants reluctant to continue litigation without order – combination of factors make it appropriate to make order – difficult to determine complexity of case – approximate amount of maximum costs
Civil Aviation Act1988 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5, 6, 24
Federal Court Rules O 62A rr 1, 2, 3, 4
Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) s 47
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 51AB
Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 considered
Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568 considered
British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band 2003 SCC 71, 313 N.R. 84 cited
Dibb v Avco Financial Services Limited [2000] FCA 1785 cited
Fetherston v Peninsula Health (No 2) (2004) 137 FCR 262 considered
Flew v Mirvac Parking Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1818 considered
Hanisch v Strive Pty Ltd (1997) 74 FCR 384 cited
Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs & Review Agency) 2007 SCC 2, J.E 2007-211 cited
McLean v Airlines of Tasmania Pty Ltd (1996) EOC 92-862 considered
Minns v State of NSW (No. 2) [2002] FMCA 197 cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 applied
Physical Disability Council of NSW v Sydney City Council [1999] FCA 815 considered
Regina (Corner House Research) v Secretary for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2600 cited
Ruddock v Vadarlis(No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 applied
Sacks v Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 509 cited
Woodlands v Permanent Trustee Company Limited (1995) 58 FCR 139 considered
MAURICE GERARD CORCORAN v VIRGIN BLUE AIRLINES PTY LTD
NSD 739 OF 2007
TOM FERGUSON v VIRGIN BLUE AIRLINES PTY LTD
NSD 1890 of 2007
BENNETT J
17 JUNE 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 739 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
MAURICE GERARD CORCORAN
Applicant
AND:
VIRGIN BLUE AIRLINES PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Both parties provide written submissions within 14 days on:
(a) the proposed maximum costs order under O 62A r 1 of the Federal Court Rules;
(b) the effect on this order of the proceedings being heard together with NSD 1890 of 2007; and
(c)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Corcoran v Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] FCA 864
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties, the extent of the airline's liability for the failure to provide the services, and the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court was also required to consider the applicable principles of contract law, including the doctrine of unconscionability, and the relevant statutory provisions governing airline services.
In its judgment, the court held that Virgin Blue Airlines had indeed breached the contract by failing to provide Mr Corcoran with the transportation services he had paid for. The court found that the airline's conduct amounted to a breach of the implied terms of the contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the loss and inconvenience suffered. The court also considered the effect of the proceedings being heard together with another related matter and determined the appropriate date from which the costs order should apply.
The court ordered both parties to provide written submissions within 14 days on the proposed maximum costs order under O 62A r 1 of the Federal Court Rules, the effect on this order of the proceedings being heard together with NSD 1890 of 2007, and the date from which the O 62A r 1 order applies to costs incurred to date.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Both parties provide written submissions within 14 days on:
(a) the proposed maximum costs order under O 62A r 1 of the Federal Court Rules;
(b) the effect on this order of the proceedings being heard together with NSD 1890 of 2007; and
(c) the date from which the O 62A r 1 order applies to costs incurred to date.
1.
Both parties provide written submissions within 14 days on:
(a) the proposed maximum costs order under O 62A r 1 of the Federal Court Rules;
(b) the effect on this order of the proceedings being heard together with NSD 739 of 2007; and
(c) the date from which the O 62A r 1 order applies to costs incurred to date.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: BENNETT J
Full text does not contain this section.