Neate v TPIVA of NSW Ltd
[2008] FMCA 12
•8 January 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| NEATE v TPIVA OF NSW LTD | [2008] FMCA 12 |
| COSTS – Human Rights – assessment of recoverable disbursements – report and recommendation by a registrar – declaration of what disbursements are recoverable. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | PETER ALFRED NEATE |
| Respondent: | TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED VETERANS’ ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED |
| File Number: | SYG 2760 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | Decided without oral hearing |
| Date of Last Submission: | 21 December 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 8 January 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr W Purdon William Purdon, Solicitor |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms C Ronalds, SC |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | John M Fitzgerald & Associates |
ORDERS
For the purposes of order 3 made on 2 May 2007, the Court declares that the respondent’s recoverable disbursements are $579.42.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2760 of 2006
| PETER ALFRED NEATE |
Applicant
And
| TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED VETERANS’ ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The parties are in dispute about payment of disbursements for the purposes of an order for payment of costs and disbursements made by me on 2 May 2007[1]. On 21 August 2007 I quantified the order for recoverable costs and, relevantly, ordered that, in the event that the parties are unable to reach agreement on recoverable disbursements before 28 September 2007, the dispute as to disbursements was to be referred to a registrar of the Court for investigation, report and recommendation pursuant to rule 18.01 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)[2]. That occurred.
[1] Order 3 made on that day for the payment of costs and disbursements by the applicant in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
[2] Order 2 made on 21 August 2007
On 3 December 2007 Registrar Tesoriero reported on the respondent’s claim for disbursements set out in a Bill of Costs filed on 5 October 2007. The registrar recommended that disbursements be allowed in the sum of $536.42 whereas the respondent had claimed disbursements of $3,477.63. I invited written submissions from the parties on the registrar’s report and recommendation. Only the respondent made submissions. In those submissions the respondent detailed its substantial claim for photocopying and submits that the claim should be allowed because of the volume of material that had been filed by the applicant prior to the respondent’s successful summary dismissal application. The respondent also presses a small claim for binders, facsimile and telephone, all of which the registrar recommended be disallowed.
There is no issue concerning the court filing fee of $419 claimed by the respondent. That is allowed, consistently with the registrar’s recommendation. There is also no issue with the sum of $117.42 photocopying undertaken by the respondent’s solicitor. That is also allowed, consistently with the registrar’s recommendation at 57 cents per copy for 206 copies. The registrar recommends that no amount be allowed for a further 4,778 copies made by the respondent. I reject the respondent’s submission that allowance should be made for those additional copies. The submissions made to me could have been made to the registrar. Further, those submissions are unpersuasive. The photocopying in issue was not undertaken by the solicitors for the respondent but by the respondent itself, quite possibly with a view to reducing costs. It would be unfair to now allow an amount for that substantial photocopying as if the photocopying had been undertaken on a solicitor and own client basis.
I will make no allowance for the claim for binders, facsimile and telephone. Those minor amounts are properly included in the lump sum award of costs. I will allow the sum of $43 for the solicitor’s travelling. I note that a proper explanation for that travel was provided in the respondent’s submissions and I was, in any event, minded to allow it, even on the mistaken basis considered by the registrar.
I will order that disbursements be allowed in the sum of $579.42.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 8 January 2008
0
0
1