Coutts v Close

[2014] FCA 141

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 141

Citation:	Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 141
Parties:	BRETT COUTTS v LEANNE CLOSE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE and COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
File number:	ACD 72 of 2013
Judge:	GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment:	28 February 2014
Catchwords:	COSTS – whether circumstances justified departure from general rule that costs should follow the event
Legislation:	Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Canadian Pacific Tobacco Ltd vStapleton (1952) 86 CLR 1 Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 19
Date of hearing:	2-5 December 2013, 19 December 2013
Date of last submissions:	25 February 2014
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr F J Purnell SC and Ms K Katavic
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Maurice Blackburn
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr G McCarthy
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Clayton Utz

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 72 of 2013

BETWEEN:

BRETT COUTTS
Applicant

AND:

LEANNE CLOSE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 FEBRUARY 2014
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings as agreed or assessed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 72 of 2013

BETWEEN:

BRETT COUTTS
Applicant

AND:

LEANNE CLOSE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE:	28 FEBRUARY 2014
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 3 February 2014, judgment was delivered in this matter (Coutts v Close [2014] FCA 19). The parties were informed that they should seek to agree an order for costs and, if they were unable to do so, they were given an opportunity to make written submissions in support of their respective positions, which they have now done.

2. For the following reasons, I consider that the normal rule should apply and that costs should follow the event, with the result that the applicant should bear the respondents’ costs.

3. The applicant submits that each party should bear its own costs or, alternatively, he should not be ordered to pay all the costs of the respondents because of the respondents’ delay in providing relevant documents, his ability to provide affidavit evidence and his need to issue a subpoena to the respondents in order to obtain some relevant material. He claims that his case and its conduct were impacted adversely by the respondents’ conduct. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.

   (a)       Delay by respondents in providing relevant documents

4. I do not accept the applicant’s contention that the respondents’ delay in providing certain documents had a “significant impact” on the preparation of…