Parsons v R Collie Excavation Pty Ltd (Trustee) (No 3)
[2022] FedCFamC2G 1017
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Parsons v R Collie Excavation Pty Ltd (Trustee) (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC2G 1017
File number(s): MLG 2047 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE CAMERON Date of judgment: 24 November 2022 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – assessment. Legislation: Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) sch 3
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) pt 1 of sch 2
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of hearing: 24 November 2022 Place: Sydney For the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms L. Hansen (Leonie Hansen Solicitors) ORDERS
MLG 2047 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SCOTT PARSONS
Applicant
AND: R COLLIE EXCAVATION PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RC BUSINESS TRUST
Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE CAMERON
DATE OF ORDER:
24 NOVEMBER 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant pay the respondent’s professional costs assessed in the amount of $12,557.50.
2.The applicant pay 50 percent of the respondent’s allowable disbursements in relation to this matter as agreed or as assessed by the Court.
3.The parties have liberty to apply no later than 8 December 2022 in relation to the calculation of costs referred to in order 1.
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 Cameron
Introduction
The application in this proceeding was dismissed on 6 October 2022 and on 28 October 2022 I ordered that the applicant, Mr Parsons, was to pay 50 percent of the respondent's costs of the proceeding.
Submissions & Consideration
The matter is listed today for a quantum determination in relation to the respondent's entitlement. In discussion today with the respondent's solicitor, Ms Hansen, attention was directed to whether the appropriate means by which costs should be determined would be the scale applicable under the Rules of this Court, which is an event costed approach to quantification, or taxation in accordance with the Federal Court Rules.
The respondent's written submissions referred to a costing scale found in sch. 3 to the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) but, as explained in discussion with Ms Hansen, that scale is not applicable to proceedings in the Court. Following discussions, Ms Hansen has submitted that the appropriate costing regime is that provided for by this Court's scale and does not press a submission that the matter should be referred to the Federal Court for taxation in accordance with its scale.
Mr Parsons, who was not in attendance on 28 October 2022, made submissions today as to the appropriateness of the costs order, at least that is how I understood his submissions. However, with all respect to him and for the reasons given on the last occasion, I do believe that the respondents are entitled to some of their costs for the reasons I gave at that time.
Approaching the matter by reference to the Court's scale, I consider the following item numbers to be appropriate:
(a)item 1 at $3,147;
(b)item 4 at $3,300, and I note in that regard that this matter was mediated in January 2022 before a Registrar of the Court;
(c)item 6 preparation for a two day trial at $10,634;
(d)item 8 taking judgment at $321 plus $321;
(e)item 9 a two day trial at $2,357 twice;
(f)item 10 a 50 per cent advocacy loading at $2,357; and
(g)item 9 a mention as a short matter on 21 October 2021 at $321.
My total of those matters is $25,115, which, at 50 percent, is $12,557.50.
Conclusion
There will be an order that the applicant pay the respondent's professional costs in the amount of $12,557.50. In the event that my calculations are incorrect, I will give the parties liberty to apply.
The respondent is also entitled to its disbursements at 50 percent. I am not sure what those are at this point, and I have not seen any documents supporting them. There will be an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s allowable disbursements in relation to this matter as agreed or as assessed.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cameron. Associate:
Dated: 6 December 2022
0
0
0