Perananthasivam v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2007] FMCA 1378

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERANANTHASIVAM v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD (No 3)

[2007] FMCA 1378

COSTS – Applicant taken to be responsible for costs incurred in summary dismissal sought by the respondent, notwithstanding partial success.

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

Perananthasivam v Telstra Corporation [2007] FMCA 1261
Perananthasivam v Telstra Corporation(No 2) [2007] FMCA 1274

Applicant:

SIVANADIAN PERANANTHASIVAM

Respondent:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

File Number:

SYG1602 of 2007

Judgment of:

Driver FM

Hearing date:

10 August 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

10 August 2007

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr B Shields

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Deacons

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS

The applicant pay the respondent's costs and disbursements of the summary dismissal application, fixed in the amount of $10,000.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG1602 of 2007

SIVANADIAN PERANANTHASIVAM

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This matter comes before me today in consequence of my decision in Perananthasivam v Telstra CorporationLtd (No 2) [2007] FMCA 1274. In para.38 of that judgment, in which I dealt with a response seeking summary dismissal of an application under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth),

I said that I had decided that the applicant in the substantive proceedings should pay the costs of the interlocutory hearing on the response. The parties asked me to defer making a decision on the quantification of the costs until today, which I acceded to.
The applicant sought an adjournment of today's hearing so that he could seek legal advice. He also sought to dispute, again, the proposition that he should bear the costs of the hearing on the response. I declined the adjournment on the basis that I had deferred the decision of quantification until today to allow the parties to consider their respective positions and that sufficient time had been allowed.
Telstra's actual costs incurred on the hearing of the response are approximately $21,000. That is a solicitor and own client estimate. On a party and party basis I would accept that costs of not less than $10,000 have been reasonably and properly incurred on behalf of Telstra in dealing with the hearing of their response.
In Perananthasivam v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] FMCA 1261 in which I dealt with an application in a case made by Mr Perananthasivam I awarded costs of $5,000 to Telstra. That matter was heard concurrently with the hearing of the issues raised in the response. That hearing took twice as long as the hearing on the response and involved at least twice as much material. It was, in substance, twice as complex.
If the Court scale were to be applied, costs would be substantially less. Hearing of the issues on the response was an interim or summary hearing as a discrete event pursuant to stage two of the costs regime in schedule 1 to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). Telstra…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Perananthasivam v Telstra Corporation Ltd 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] FMCA 1378
Decision Date: 10 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sivanadian Perananthasivam, the applicant, sought legal recourse against Telstra Corporation Ltd, the respondent, in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's attempts to pursue a claim under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The court was tasked with determining the appropriate allocation of costs in relation to the respondent's application for summary dismissal of the applicant's claims. The matter was heard before Driver FM and involved an examination of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, who had partially succeeded in his claims, should be held responsible for the costs incurred by the respondent in the summary dismissal application. This question required the court to balance the principle of costs following the event against the applicant's partial success. The court had to determine an equitable amount for costs that would reflect the respondent's reasonable and necessary expenditures while also considering the applicant's position.

Driver FM determined that the applicant should bear the costs incurred by the respondent during the summary dismissal hearing. The court accepted that the respondent had reasonably and properly incurred costs of at least $10,000. Despite the application of the cost scales outlined in the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), which suggested a lower amount, the court found that a party-and-party basis was more appropriate in this case. The court certified that the applicant should pay $10,000 to cover the respondent's costs and disbursements. This decision adhered to the principles established in previous judgments and aimed to ensure a fair outcome considering all the circumstances.

The final order of the court was that the applicant, Sivanadian Perananthasivam, should pay the respondent, Telstra Corporation Ltd, the sum of $10,000 to cover the costs and disbursements arising from the summary dismissal hearing.

Orders