Hanson v Burston (No 2)

[2023] FCA 41

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hanson v Burston (No 2) [2023] FCA 41  

File number:

NSD 1210 of 2020

Judgment of:

BROMWICH J

Date of judgment:

3 February 2023

Catchwords:

COSTS – where question of costs arises from an interlocutory application brought by the respondent for strike out and/or summary dismissal of the applicant’s Originating Application and Amended Points of Claim – where the respondent received partial but substantial success in obtaining judgment in the interlocutory application – Held: the applicant pay 75% of his costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO(3)

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 46PO(3)

Cases cited:

Hanson v Burston [2022] FCA 1234

Division:

General Division

Registry:

New South Wales

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

12

Date of last submissions:

6 December 2022

Date of hearing:

On the papers

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr P Moorhouse and Ms R Kumar

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Harmers Workplace Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms K Eastman SC and Mr R Lee

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 1210 of 2020

BETWEEN:

PAULINE HANSON

Applicant

AND:

BRIAN BURSTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 FEBRUARY 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay 75% of the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the interlocutory application dated 20 August 2021, including the costs of the submissions on costs.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMWICH J:

1. On 19 October 2022, I delivered judgment on an interlocutory application brought by the respondent: Hanson v Burston [2022] FCA 1234. These are the reasons for deciding the disputed question of costs arising from that application and judgment.

2. By his interlocutory application, Mr Burston asserted that:

   (a)this Court had no jurisdiction to determine whether, as alleged by the applicant, Ms Pauline Hanson, he contravened s 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and no power to declare that he had done so (Jurisdictional Issue), therefore seeking summary judgment;

   (b)this Court had no jurisdiction with respect to some of the claims pleaded in the amended points of claim because they were not included in Ms Hanson’s complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission, as required by s 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (Section 46PO(3) Issue), therefore seeking summary judgment of those parts of the claim;

   (c)there was no reasonable prospect of success in relation to the entire claim brought by Ms Hanson via her originating application and amended points of claim (Reasonable Prospects Issue), therefore seeking summary judgment.

3. The conclusion that I reached in the judgment was that:

   (a)this Court did have jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Burston contravened s 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act and therefore to grant declaratory relief to that effect;

   (b)this Court did not have…