Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock (No 2)

Diaz and Attie, the plaintiffs, brought an action against Ruddock, the defendant, before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs sought declarations and injunctions regarding Ruddock's alleged failure to consult them under a statutory scheme. The case was heard by Justice North. The legal issues before the court involved the general principle that costs in litigation follow the event, the appropriateness of granting declarations and injunctions when the content of the obligation to consult is fact-specific, and whether such obligations had yet arisen in the context of this case.

Justice North addressed the issue of costs first, noting that generally, costs follow the event. However, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs up until the point of entering a submitting appearance, as this was a reasonable and proportionate outcome given the circumstances. Regarding the equitable remedies sought, the court found that it was not appropriate to grant declarations or injunctions because the content of the obligation to consult was highly fact-specific. Furthermore, the occasion for consultation had not yet arisen, making it premature to provide such relief. Therefore, the plaintiffs' application for declarations and injunctions was dismissed.

The final orders of the court included dismissing the plaintiffs' application for declarations and injunctions and awarding the plaintiffs their costs up until the entry of a submitting appearance. The defendant was not ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs beyond that point.