Dudzinski v Kellow

[2000] FCA 740

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dudzinski v Kellow [2000] FCA 740

PROCEDURE – Costs – where pursuant to O 62 r 46 of the Federal Court Rules a taxing officer estimated approximate total for which, if bill of costs was taxed, a certificate of taxation would likely issue – where notice of objection to estimate filed, but without payment of $750 to Registrar as security for costs of taxation of the bill – whether discretion to waive payment should be exercised on basis of, inter alia, applicant’s status as social security recipient – consideration of purpose of security for costs of taxation and comparison with filing fees, setting down fees and hearing fees.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
Federal Court Rules
Federal Court of Australia Regulations 1978

Fuller v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and Anor (Unreported, French J, 15 April 1998)

WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOW
Q 110 OF 1999

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
24 MAY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q110 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPLICANT
AND:	AYNSLEY KELLOW RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The relief sought on the notice of motion filed 15 March 2000 be refused.

2.The applicant on the motion pay the costs on the motion of the respondent on the motion, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q110 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPLICANT
AND:	AYNSLEY KELLOW RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	24 MAY 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I am today concerned with a notice of motion by Mr Dudzinski, filed on 15 March 2000.  In relation to this matter Mr Dudzinski advised the Registrar that he would not appear today, and wished his motion to be dealt with on the basis of his written material and submissions.

2. I will now indicate the core material to which I have had reference in respect of this notice of motion. 

3. The present notice of motion, filed 15 March 2000, seeks:

   “1.      To review the Certificate of Taxation Q 110/99 dated 29.2.2000 of Deputy  Registrar Baldwin and her decision of 23.2.2000, and disallow [sic] of costs on the grounds of improper, vexatious or unnecessary matter in documents or proceedings and other grounds mentioned in the applicant's notice of motion of 24.1.2000 and the amended and the supplementary statement of objections of 17.2.2000 and 21.2.2000, and especially to reduce the costs by 1/3 on [sic] virtue of Order 62, rule 36A before any consideration as to issue of Taxation Certificate. 

   2.        Orders sought by the applicant in his notice of motion of 24.1.2000 accepted for filing on 27.1.2000 be granted. 

   3.        The cost of the applicant's notice of motion of 24.1.2000 accepted for filing on 27.1.2000 and incidental to it be costs of the Respondents.

   4.        Decision of Deputy Registrar Baldwin of…