McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) (No 2) [2007] FCA 2086

COSTS – Indemnity costs – applicant failed altogether after refusing an offer of compromise – circumstances not within O23 r 11 of the Federal Court Rules – test to be applied - claims made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – whether there are consequent restrictions on the power to award costs

WORDS AND PHRASES – Unreasonable – plainly unreasonable – imprudent – without reasonable cause

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth )
Federal Court Rules O 23 r 11, O 23 r 11(5)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 236(4), s 253, s 255, s 643, s 650(2), s 651, s 659, s 659(2)(f), s 663, s 663(5), s 666, s 666(1), s 674, s 824, s 824(1), s 824(2), s 824(3)
Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth)

APF Properties Pty Ltd v Kestrel Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 2016
Bahonko v Sterjov [2007] FCA 1341
Berowra Holdings Pty Limited v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364
Black v Lipovac (1998) 217 ALR 386
Coshott v Learoyd [1999] FCA 276
Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 1
Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Limited v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120
Josephson v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691
Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimovski (2005) 226 ALR 773
Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority (No 2) [2000] FCA 16; 94 IR 404
McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) [2007] FCA 1903
Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (2004) 148 FCR 145
Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 1489
Smolle v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited (No 2) [2007] FCA 1967

DEMETRIUS IRENE MCDONALD v PARNELL LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LIMITED AND ALAN BELL
NSD 1615 OF 2007

BUCHANAN J
21 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1615 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

DEMETRIUS IRENE MCDONALD
Applicant

AND:

PARNELL LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LIMITED
First Respondent

ALAN BELL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs up to and including 6 August 2007 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs from 7 August 2007 to the date of this judgment on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed in accordance with O 62 of the Federal Court Rules, if not agreed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1615 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

DEMETRIUS IRENE MCDONALD
Applicant

AND:

PARNELL LABORATORIES (AUST) PTY LIMITED
First Respondent

ALAN BELL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

21 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

  1. On 7…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) (No 2) 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
[2007] FCA 2086
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, McDonald, brought an action against Parnell Laboratories (Aust), and several others, seeking damages for breach of statutory duty under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) and common law negligence. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had standing to bring the action on behalf of the class of people who had taken the drug, Fen-Phen, manufactured by Parnell Laboratories.

The court considered whether the applicant had established that he had suffered loss or damage as a result of the drug, and whether he had standing to bring the action on behalf of the class. The court held that the applicant had standing to bring the action on behalf of the class, but that he had failed to establish that he had suffered any loss or damage as a result of taking the drug. The court further held that the applicant's claim for damages was statute-barred.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs up to and including 6 August 2007 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs from 7 August 2007 to the date of this judgment on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed in accordance with O 62 of the Federal Court Rules, if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs up to and including 6 August 2007 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs from 7 August 2007 to the date of this judgment on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed in accordance with O 62 of the Federal Court Rules, if not agreed.

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

BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.