Fennell v Australian National University

[1999] FCA 1044

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fennell v Australian National University [1999] FCA 1044

LUKE FENNELL v AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY & ANOR

NG 1008 OF 1997

JUDGE:         SACKVILLE J
PLACE:         SYDNEY

DATE:           30 JULY 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1008 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

LUKE FENNELL
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

BRUCE STENING
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JULY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1008 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

LUKE FENNELL
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
First Respondent

BRUCE STENING
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JULY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, I delivered judgment on 22 July 1999, dismissing the application. 

2. I gave the parties the opportunity to make written submissions on costs.  I did so, in part, because I gained the impression that the respondents wished to submit that they should receive an order more favourable than the usual order for costs on a party and party basis.

3. The respondents have now filed a brief written submission in which they seek an order in the usual form that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings.  The applicant, for his part, has filed an equally brief submission in which he submits, somewhat tentatively, that there are circumstances justifying the Court in making an order that the applicant and the respondents bear his or their own costs of the proceedings.

4. The only ground relied upon by the applicant to justify departure from the general rule that costs follow the event is the fact that I found that the advertisement placed by the first respondent in the “Age” on 16 March 1996 was ambiguous and reflected carelessness on the part of those responsible for it.  In my opinion, this is not enough to justify departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.  The applicant failed to make out his claims for relief, both under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and under contractual principles. He should pay the costs of the respondents on the usual basis.

5. Accordingly, I order the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.

Associate:

Dated:             30 July 1999

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr R D Wilson
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Coleman & Greig
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr C C Hodgekiss with Ms E K Glover
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Date of Submissions on Costs:	28 and 29 July 1999
Date of Judgment:	30 July 1999