Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3)

Case [2012] FCA 39

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39

Citation: Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39
Parties: PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON v CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE
File number: SAD 131 of 2011
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 31 January 2012
Dates of hearing: 13, 20 January 2012
Place: Adelaide
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 2
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Psaltis
Solicitor for the Respondent: Norman Waterhouse

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 131 of 2011
BETWEEN:

PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON
Applicant
AND:

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JANUARY 2012

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 131 of 2011
BETWEEN:

PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON
Applicant
AND:

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE
Respondent

JUDGE:

BESANKO J

DATE:

31 JANUARY 2012

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant has again asked for an adjournment.  I refer to her email dated today.  She is not present this afternoon. The applicant’s application must be considered in the context of previous requests and the hearings held on 13 January and 20 January 2012. I am not prepared to grant the applicant the “long” adjournment she seeks and I will deal with the matter today. The respondent applies for the costs of the proceeding and including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.  In the ordinary case, that would be the order made. However, the applicant was unrepresented and was seeking to enforce environmental legislation. 

  2. The respondent quite properly referred the Court to cases where the circumstances in which an unsuccessful applicant might avoid an order for costs if the proceeding has been brought in the public interest were considered. I have considered the cases to which I was referred and the circumstances of this case. I see no reason not to make the usual order as to costs, especially where the applicant’s claim has been dismissed under the summary judgment provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 2) (2012) FCA 9. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated:       31 January 2012

Details
AGLC
Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39
Case
[2012] FCA 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court was an application by Henderson against the Corporation of the City of Adelaide. The applicant sought to overturn a decision made by the respondent, which had refused to grant a permit for a public gathering. The nature of the dispute was the applicant's challenge to the decision on the basis of alleged procedural unfairness and an infringement of his right to freedom of political communication. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the decision of the Corporation was legally sound and whether there was any procedural unfairness. The court also needed to determine if the decision had infringed upon the applicant's right to freedom of political communication, as enshrined in the Australian Constitution. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the refusal of the permit was unreasonable and whether the applicant had standing to challenge the decision.

The court's reasoning focused on the legality of the decision-making process and the rights of the applicant. The court found that the decision of the Corporation was not legally flawed and that there was no procedural unfairness. The court held that the decision did not infringe upon the applicant's right to freedom of political communication. The court also determined that the refusal of the permit was not unreasonable and that the applicant had standing to challenge the decision. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.