Mathews v State Of Queensland and Anor (No.4)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MATHEWS v STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ANOR (No.4)

[2014] FCCA 1978

Legislation:
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.13.03C(1)(c), 16.05(2)(a)

Applicant:

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

First Respondent:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Second Respondent:

CLARK’S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE (QLD) PTY LTD

File Number:

BRG 363 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

25 August 2014

Date of Last Submission:

25 August 2014

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

25 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

There being no appearance by the Applicant

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr F. Walsh

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Crown Law

Solicitor for the Third Party:

Ms E. Leroy

Solicitors for the Third Party:

Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers

ORDERS

Pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 the application filed 20 August 2014 is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRG 363 of 2014

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

Applicant

And

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

First Respondent

CLARK’S LOGAN CITY BUS SERVICE (QLD) PTY LTD

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ex tempore

On 10 July, 2014, the applicant, Russell Gordon Haig Mathews, filed an application in a case wherein he sought pursuant to rule 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 an order that this Court set aside and/or vary all of the orders that the Court made in this proceeding on 23 June, 2014. In their place he seeks an order that the Court accommodate,
… the Special Needs of the applicant, resulting from the derailed thinking effects of the brain damage to the applicant, for the conduct of these proceedings, including for the consideration of this Application.
On 23 June, 2014 I made orders dismissing the applicant’s application that was filed in the Federal Court of Australia and transferred to this Court by order of Rangiah J on 24 April, 2014. I delivered reasons for judgment for dismissing the applicant’s applications. I made orders for costs. The applicant then applied to have those orders set aside pursuant to rule 16.05(2)(a) and I dismissed that application by orders that I made on 11 August, 2014. This is an application for the same relief and, seemingly, on the same grounds as the last application that I dismissed.
The applicant, yet again, has chosen not to appear to prosecute his application. In those circumstances, I intend to dismiss the most recent application pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001.
In addition, I would record that given that there is no further basis advanced by the applicant as far as I can tell beyond the bases upon which he advanced his application that was dismissed by me on 11 August, 2014, it seems that the application is nonetheless doomed to failure.
For those reasons the application filed on 20 August, 2014 is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Jarrett

Associate:

Date: 5 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by the plaintiff, Mr. Mathews, for an order that the defendants, the State of Queensland and the Queensland Police Service, pay his costs of the proceeding. The application was heard by Judge Jarrett in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff should be awarded costs against the defendants, notwithstanding that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in his substantive claim. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the award of costs, particularly in circumstances where a party has acted unreasonably or vexatiously, or where there has been a significant departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Judge Jarrett considered the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation, including his failure to comply with court orders and his persistent pursuit of claims that were found to be without merit. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Oshlack v English Family Company Pty Ltd* and *Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaret Gold Mining Co Pty Ltd*, which confirm that while costs generally follow the event, a court retains a discretion to depart from this rule where justice requires. His Honour found that the plaintiff's conduct had been unreasonable and had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings, justifying a departure from the usual costs order.

The Court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established