THE COURT ORDERS THAT the costs of the first respondents be paid by the applicant, together with all reserved costs and including any costs reserved in respect of any notice of motion, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.
m:
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
)
OUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
)
NO. QG 38 of 1994
)
BETWEEN : TERESA LIDDLE
Applicant
AND c
SOCIETY LIMITED and PETER MORLEY
First Respondents
AND :
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EOUAL
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Second Respondent
CORAM
:
Spender J
PLACE
: Brisbane
DATE:
16 December 1994
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for costs by the first respondents, Peter Morley and the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited, in respect of proceedings QG38 of
1994. The history of the matter is contained in the various
reports of listings, and the position is that MS Liddle has throughout acted for herself, although there have been attempts by her in the course of those proceedings to have legal representation obtained in respect of the formulation of what her case was and the material on which she relied in support of that application.
There were, as those records of listings show, a
series of hearings where attempts were made to permit
MS Liddle to formulate an application with affidavit material.
2
Notwithstanding the repetition of appearances before the court, no actual resolution of that primary question was ever achieved, and on 12 August 1994 the court directed that an amended application and supplementary affidavits be filed and served by 15 September 1994. The court further ordered that if the amended application and affidavits were not filed as the court directed, then the proceedings would stand dismissed.
This guillotine order, of course, is one of last resort, and is only made against a background where, in its absence, injustice would be caused to the other parties to the litigation. It was a considered order having regard to the interests of all the parties in the litigation and the detailed history of the litigation as it stood at that time.
For reasons which are perhaps understandable but nonetheless which are of no comfort to the respondents, MS Liddle was unable to file the amended application and affidavits that the court had directed wlthin the time the court ordered, and, as a consequence, those proceedings stand dismissed.
Today an application is made by the first respondents for their costs of those proceedings. The order for costs is resisted by MS Liddle, and she has referred to a number of matters. Her submissions, I have to say, are somewhat diffuse, and they touch on a proceeding which is
3
available to her and is being prosecuted with legal assistance in the Supreme Court. Those considerations, however, do not affect, it seems to me, the correctness of the order that I am to make concerning costs of these proceedings.
In accordance with the ordinary rule, I propose to order that the respondents, Peter Morley and Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Soclety Limited, have their costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs; those costs to be taxed if not agreed. Those costs include any costs reserved in respect of any notice of motion. The ordinary rule as to costs should apply, in my view, in the present case, and nothing has been put before me to indicate that the ordinary rule as to costs should not apply in this case. I note specifically, however, that there is no application for costs by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
The final matter concerns a fear that MS Liddle has expressed concerning the Federal Court records and possible consequences to her should they be interfered with. As the material contained in the correspondence file in this proceeding indicates, there have been a number of matters raised by MS Liddle concerning tampering with records and transcripts and her complaints have been the subject of inquiry and representations.
An earlier complaint as to the adequacy of the
transcript of an appearance before me I caused to be
4
investigated, and, as I indicated in the transcripts of
subsequent proceedings, my then associate compared the actual transcript with the tape recorded conversation and the effect is that the transcript was one of integrity, there being some matters omitted, being of the "um" and "ah" variety; some matters of comment in the nature of omissions of comments by me, like, "all right," or "I am sorry," when I have corrected myself; the avoidance of repetition in respect of the words, "There is a question - there is a question about the accuracy of the record of the proceedings below".
The complaint of MS Liddle caused me concern at the time and required investigation, the result being that the transcript was a substantially complete record of the proceedings of that directions hearing.
However, because of the fears that MS Liddle has expressed today, I want to assure her that absolutely no document or record of any kind relating to these proceedings will be destroyed. I cannot speak in respect of the tape recordings which are within the custody of the shorthand reporting servlce, but so far as the Federal Court's records are concerned nothing will be tampered with, interfered with or destroyed.
I certify that
and the preceding
three (3)
a true copy of the
reasons
herein
. Hf the
&.-'L?
Date:
C o u n s e l
for
t h e a p p l i c a n t :
M S
L l d d l e
i n p e r s o n
So l i c i to r s
for
the
f irst
r e s p o n d e n t s :
M S
A .
M .
Dougher t y
o f
O'Mara,
P a t t e r s o n
&
Perrier
Sol ici tors
for
the s e c o n d
r e s p o n d e n t :
M r J .
Brooks
o f Human
R i g h t s
and
Equal
O p p o r t u n i t y Commission
Da te o f Hear ing :
16 December
1994
Details
AGLC
Liedig v Commissioner of Taxation [1994] FCA 1058
Case
[1994] FCA 1058
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Liedig v Commissioner of Taxation involved the applicant, Teresa Liddle, and the respondents, Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited and Peter Morley. The proceedings pertained to an application for costs, as the first respondents sought reimbursement for expenses incurred during the litigation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, Queensland District Registry.
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the first respondents, Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited and Peter Morley, were entitled to be reimbursed for the costs they incurred during the litigation. The court needed to consider the circumstances surrounding the proceedings, including the applicant's failure to file the amended application and affidavits as directed by the court. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the applicant's arguments against the respondents' request for costs and assess whether the ordinary rule regarding costs should apply in this case.
Spender J, the presiding judge, determined that the ordinary rule concerning costs should apply in this case. The judge found that no compelling arguments were presented to deviate from the standard practice of awarding costs to the prevailing party. The judge also reassured the applicant that no Federal Court records related to the proceedings would be tampered with, destroyed, or interfered with, addressing the applicant's concerns about potential consequences due to the court records.
The court ordered that the first respondents, Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited and Peter Morley, would be reimbursed for their costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs. These costs were to be taxed if not agreed upon. The judge did not consider it necessary to address the application for costs by the second respondent, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as no such application was made.