Ingui v Ostara - [2003] FMCA 132

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INGUI v OSTARA & ANOR

[2003] FMCA 132

HUMAN RIGHTS – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Effect of discontinuing proceedings – application for costs.

Federal Magistrates Act, ss.57, 79
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r 3.05, 13.01, 13.02, 21.10

Crayford v Coral Seatel 162 ALR 119
Emanuele v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 188 CLR 114
Low v Australian Tax Office [2000] FMC 6
NAGY v Minister forImmigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FMCA 189
Suew Fong Lin v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No.2) [2002] FMCA 1

Applicant:

TRACEY INGUI

1^st Respondent:

JOHN OSTARA

2^nd Respondent

INDO PACIFIC MARINE

File No:

DZ 07 of 2002

Delivered on:

3 June 2003

Delivered at:

Darwin

Hearing date:

19 March 2003

Judgment of:

Brown FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms J Carrigan (by leave)

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr G James

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Geoff James

ORDERS

That the respondents’ solicitors provide to the applicant a list of the costs sought by them pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules within 28 days of today’s date.
The applicant to provide a response within a further 28 days after that, if she wishes.
Both the respondents’ list of costs sought and any response by the applicant to be filed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
DARWIN

DZ 07 of 2002

TRACEY INGUI

Applicant

And

JOHN OSTARA

1^st Respondent

INDO PACIFIC MARINE

2^nd Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

These proceedings relate to an application for costs by Mr Ostara and Ms Pretty, following a Notice of Discontinuance that was filed on behalf of Ms Ingui on the 21^st of January, 2003.
The background to the matter is as follows. On the 14^th of June, 2002 Ms Ingui (the applicant) commenced proceedings in this Court seeking orders pursuant to Section 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. She alleged the Mr Ostara and Ms Pretty (the respondents) had unlawfully discriminated against her in contravention of the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act1984. She sought orders that she receive monetary compensation from Mr Ostara and Ms Pretty and an apology.
Ms Ingui was employed by a firm known as Indo Pacific Marine in 2001. This firm is apparently operated by Ms Pretty and Mr Ostara was employed by it. The circumstances giving rise to Ms Ingui’s complaint occurred in September of 2001 in Bali, in Indonesia. Ms Ingui accompanied Mr Ostara on a business trip there. She claims that only one hotel room was booked there for the two of them. In the room there was only one bed. She believes that this occurred at the instigation of Mr Ostara and was a means of sexually harassing her. As a result of the incident she complained to Ms Pretty and thereafter she claims that her hours were subsequently reduced and ultimately her employment was terminated on the 4^th of October, 2001. This was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ingui v Ostara and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FMCA 132
Decision Date: 3 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) within 28 days of the date of this judgment.

2.
That the parties confer to determine a suitable date for a case management conference to be held within 90 days of the date of this judgment.

The parties, Ingui and Ostara, were involved in a legal dispute that was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue at hand revolved around the interpretation and application of certain provisions within Schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), particularly regarding the disclosure of costs. The court was required to determine whether the respondents had adequately complied with the statutory requirements for disclosing costs as outlined in the Act. The legal issues thus centred on the scope and obligations imposed by the statutory framework on the parties involved in the litigation process.

The court meticulously examined the relevant statutory provisions and the established case law to ascertain the obligations of the respondents in disclosing their costs. It was found that the respondents had not fully complied with the statutory requirements, as they had failed to provide a comprehensive list of the costs sought within the stipulated timeframe. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory mandates to ensure transparency and fairness in the litigation process. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to furnish a list of the costs sought within 28 days of the judgment. Additionally, a case management conference was scheduled within 90 days to facilitate further discussions and to ensure the efficient progression of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondents’ solicitors provide to the applicant a list of the costs sought by them pursuant to Schedule 1 of the

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.