Klein v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Qld) Inc (No 2)

[2025] FedCFamC2G 345

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Klein v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Qld) Inc (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 345

File number(s):

BRG 641 of 2023

Judgment of:

JUDGE EGAN

Date of judgment:

12 March 2025

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – where the applicant’s claim was dismissed – where costs usually follow the event – where amendments to legislation limiting the circumstances in which costs orders might be made in a proceeding commenced under the provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act had no bearing upon the making of costs orders in the current proceeding – where the usual costs order was made.

Legislation:

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024 (Cth)

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

7

Date of last submission/s:

11 March 2025

Date of hearing:

18 and 20 February 2025

Place:

Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R. Reed

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Maurice Blackburn

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr D O’Gorman SC
Mr S Trewavas

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Stanton & Associates

ORDERS

BRG 641 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

JAMES KLEIN

Applicant

AND:

SPORTING SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA (QLD.)

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	12 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, such costs to be as agreed between the parties, or failing agreement, as taxed in accordance with rule 22.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE EGAN

Introduction

1. On 25 February 2025, the Court dismissed the applicant’s claim against the respondent after a two-day trial.

2. At the time that the applicant commenced the proceeding, there was no legislative provision equivalent to that which amended the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) by the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Act 2024 (Cth) (AHRC Amendment Act).

3. It was conceded on behalf of the applicant that amendments made pursuant to the AHRC Amendment Act had no bearing upon the question of costs in the subject proceeding. For the purposes of the Court making costs orders in the subject proceeding, those amendments to the AHRC Act are irrelevant. The submission made on behalf of the applicant that the Court should have regard to such amendments was misconceived.

   Relevant Considerations

4. The applicant recognised that costs usually follow the event.

5. To the extent that the applicant submitted that the Court ought to exclude from any costs order the costs of and incidental to the respondent’s Amended Response and Amended Defence each filed on 23 January 2024, the Court accepts the submission made on behalf of the respondents that such argument can be advanced at the time of assessment.

6. As to any such assessment, the Court notes that each party has amended its pleadings during the proceeding.

7. It is accordingly ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding. It is noted that the applicant has submitted that the abandonment of a claim by the respondent at an early stage of the proceeding ought to be taken into account in the assessment of the quantum of costs to be awarded. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Dated:       12 March 2025