Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

[2023] ACTCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

Citation: 

[2023] ACTCA 50

Hearing Date: 

14 December 2023

Decision Date: 

14 December 2023

Before:

Curtin AJ

Decision: 

(1)    The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal as a sum in gross in the amount of $12,500.00 (incl GST).

(2)    Each party is to pay their own costs of this application.

Catchwords: 

COSTS – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for gross sum costs order – costs order appropriate

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1401, 1720, 5001

Cases Cited: 

Jorgensen v Wilson [2023] ACTCA 45
Jorgensen v The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 396

Parties: 

Alan Bradley Jorgensen ( Appellant)

Cheryl Wilson (First Respondent)

Graham Ashworth (Second Respondent)

Ailsa Wilson (Third Respondent)

Graeme Donald (Fourth Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

T Gaffney ( Respondents)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

Ashurst ( Respondents)

File Number:

Decision Under Appeal: 

AC 15 of 2023

Court/Tribunal:           ACT Supreme Court

Before:   Mossop J

Date of Decision:       10 March 2023

Case Title:                  Jorgensen v Wilson (No 2)

Citation: [2023] ACTSC 40

Court File Number:     SC 165 of 2022

CURTIN AJ:  

EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

1․In these proceedings, the respondents to the appeal seek the following orders:

1.That the appellant pays the respondents' costs of the appeal (but not the costs of this application), as a sum in gross in the amount of $12,500.00 (or such other amount as the Court deems fit) pursuant to rr 1720(3)(c) and 5001 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules).

2.Payment is to be made by the appellant within 28 days of the Court's order.

3.Each party is to pay their own costs of this application.

4.Any other orders that the Court considers appropriate.

2․This judgment should be read with my costs judgment in the associated judicial review proceedings, and the background facts set out in that judgment should be taken as the background facts relevant to this application: see Jorgensen v The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 396.

3․The respondents read the affidavit of Melanie McKean, affirmed on 6 December 2023, and tendered the annexures to that document. That affidavit was read, and those documents were received in evidence.

4․Mr Jorgensen sought to tender three emails sent to my associate and copied to the solicitors for the respondents, and dated 1, 11, and 14 December 2023. Those emails were marked MFI A on the application. I rejected the tender of the emails on the basis they were completely irrelevant to the cost application. For example, in the emails, Mr Jorgensen sought various information in relation to me personally, such as my name, whether I had been sworn in as a judge, and like irrelevant matters.

5․He made a number of allegations and assertions in those emails of various types, but none of which addressed the issue of costs.

6․In submissions, Mr Jorgensen made similarly irrelevant submissions, similar to those made in the associated judicial review costs application with, perhaps, the additional issue that he submitted I could not constitute the Court of Appeal for the purpose of the application that I determined in my judgment of Jorgensen v Wilson [2023] ACTCA 45. My power to sit as the Court of Appeal to determine that application is set out in that judgment at [38]-[42], which perhaps Mr Jorgensen has not yet read.

7․As for the judicial review costs’ application, I also imposed a time limit of five minutes on Mr Jorgensen, which I told him would be enforced if he was not making any submissions relevant to the costs’ issues, and that the five minutes would be extended if, indeed, he started to make relevant submissions and needed more time.

8․As events transpired, none of Mr Jorgensen’s submissions were relevant to the costs application, and the five minutes was enforced, pursuant to the power I have to do so in r 1401(4)(e) and (m) of the Rules. For example, Mr Jorgensen submitted that I was not allowed to cut him off after five minutes (a submission which is wrong). He submitted I was not a proper judge, and he made lengthy submissions as to why it was that Mossop J could not declare Mr Jorgensen to be a vexatious litigant.

9․For the reasons I have given in the associated judicial review proceedings, I believe it is appropriate in this case to exercise my discretion to make orders 1 and 3 as sought by the respondents.

Orders

10․I make the following orders:

(1)The appellant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding as a sum in gross in the amount of $12,500.00 (incl GST).

(2)Each party is to pay their own costs of this application.

I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Curtin.

Associate:

Date: