Legal Research
Cases
Dutton v Bazzi (No 2)

Dutton v Bazzi (No 2)

Case [2021] FCA 1560 8 December 2021

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dutton v Bazzi (No 2) [2021] FCA 1560

File number: NSD352 of 2021

Judgment of: WHITE J

Date of judgment: 8 December 2021

Catchwords:
COSTS – application for costs on an indemnity basis by the successful Applicant in defamation proceedings – no special or unusual circumstances to justify costs on an indemnity basis – application rejected.

COSTS – unsuccessful party’s claim for a reduction of the costs payable pursuant to r 40.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether the Applicant could have commenced proceedings in a more suitable court – claim for reduction of costs upheld.

Legislation:
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Uniform Defamation Acts

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 25, 40.08

Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) s 40

Cases cited:
AMP Services Ltd v Manning (No 3) [2007] FCA 510

Australasian Performing Right Association Limited v Metro on George Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1371, (2004) 64 IPR 57

Colgate‑Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536; (1993) 46 FCR 225

Dutton v Bazzi [2021] FCA 1474

Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 896

Hanson‑Young v Leyonhjelm (No 5) [2020] FCA 34

Hayson v Age Company Pty Ltd (No 3) [2020] FCA 1163; (2020) 280 FCR 139

Hockey v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 750; (2015) 237 FCR 127

Murphy v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 432

Oliver v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 583

Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72

Queensland North Australia Pty Ltd v Takeovers Panel (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 128; (2015) 236 FCR 270

Stead v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 15; (2021) 387 ALR 123

Tenji v Henneberry & Associates Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1259

Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation v Walsh [2019] FCAFC 32; (2019) 268 FCR 401

Division: General Division

Registry: New South Wales

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs: 52

Date of hearing: 8 December 2021

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Clift

Solicitor for the Applicant: Baker McKenzie

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Potter SC with Mr B Dean

Solicitor for the Respondent: O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors

ORDERS

NSD352 of 2021

BETWEEN:
PETER CRAIG DUTTON

Applicant

AND:
SHANE BAZZI

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

WHITE J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Judgment is entered for Mr Dutton against Mr Bazzi in the sum of $35,825.
2.Mr Bazzi pay Mr Dutton’s costs, but on the scale appropriate to an action brought in the Queensland Magistrates Court for a defamation resulting in a judgment of $35,825.
3.With respect to disbursements, Mr Bazzi pay only those disbursements which Mr Dutton would have had to pay, had the proceedings been brought and pursued in the Queensland Magistrates Court.
4.Mr Dutton pay 50% of Mr Bazzi’s costs of, and incidental to, today’s hearing.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dutton v Bazzi (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Dutton v Bazzi (No 2) [2021] FCA 1560
Case: [2021] FCA 1560
Decision Date: 8 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dutton v Bazzi (No 2) involved a dispute between the parties over defamation claims. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Applicant, Dutton, had successfully defended defamation proceedings against the Respondent, Bazzi, and sought costs on an indemnity basis. In addition, Bazzi applied for a reduction in costs pursuant to rule 40.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The court was required to determine whether there were special or unusual circumstances that would justify awarding costs on an indemnity basis to the successful party, Dutton. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Bazzi's claim for a reduction in costs was valid, considering whether the proceedings could have been initiated in a more suitable court.

The court found that there were no special or unusual circumstances that would warrant costs on an indemnity basis. The court ruled that the successful party's claim for such costs was rejected. However, the court did uphold Bazzi's application for a reduction in costs, finding that the proceedings could have been more appropriately commenced in a different court, thus justifying a reduction in costs payable.

The final orders of the court included the rejection of Dutton's application for indemnity costs and the upholding of Bazzi's application for a reduction in costs, as per rule 40.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders