Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Carr

[2003] NSWCA 2

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:      Gorman v Health Care Complaints Commission & Anor [2003]  NSWCA 2

FILE NUMBER(S):
40377/02

HEARING DATE(S):            8 November 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/02/2003

PARTIES:
Dr Richard Gorman
Health Care Complaints Commission
Medical Tribunal of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF:      Heydon JA Hodgson JA Sperling J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Medical Tribunal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):        

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Patten DCJ, Dr Donald Grimes, Dr Roy Taylor, Mrs Joan Ellard

COUNSEL:
The Appellant in person
Mr T Golding for the Respondents

SOLICITORS:
The Appellant in person
Health Care Complaints Commission for the Respondents

CATCHWORDS:
Costs
no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
See paragraph 7 of the judgment.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

40377/02

Heydon JA
Hodgson JA
Sperling J

Thursday, 6 February 2003

Gorman v Health Care Complaints Commission & Anor

Judgment - Costs

1. The Court:         Judgment was given in this appeal on 10 December 2002.   

2. The Medical Tribunal of New South Wales had ordered the appellant, Dr Gorman, to pay one-half of the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission in relation to the proceedings before the Tribunal.  The orders of this Court, on appeal, included the following orders as to costs.

   5.Subject to orders 7 and 8 following, the Tribunal’s order for costs set aside and the following order substituted: that the appellant pay one quarter of the complainant’s costs.

   6.Subject to orders 7 and 8 following, no order as to the costs of the appeal.

   7.Liberty to apply by written submission for reconsideration of orders 5 and 6 above within two weeks from the present date.

   8.In the event of any written submission being made pursuant to order 7 above, the opposite party to have liberty to make any written submission in reply within two weeks thereafter.

   The judgment of Sperling J included reasons for those orders, with which Heydon and Hodgson JJA agreed.

3. Written submissions have been received from the appellant, Dr Gorman and from counsel for the Commission.  Dr Gorman’s submissions are dated 11 November 2002.  The Commission’s submissions are in reply to those of Dr Gorman and were filed on 6 January 2003.  An affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission shows that the Commission’s submissions were served on Dr Gorman by posting a copy of them to him on 7 January 2003.  Accordingly, time for any submissions in reply by Dr Gorman has expired. 

4. Dr Gorman’s submissions in relation to costs include the following.

   5.The appellant has no problem, in the legal sense, of costs being payable to the respondent as directed by the Court.

   That is a reference to this Court’s order 5, there being no other order that Dr Gorman pay the Commission’s costs.  Dr Gorman’s submissions conclude as follows.

   17.The Health Care Complaints Commission can do this simply by saying that it does not want Dr Gorman’s payment of costs – the message sent by this sentiment, will be very clear.

   No other variation to this Court's orders in relation to costs is sought by Dr Gorman. Accordingly, Dr Gorman does not seek revision of this Court’s order 6, which relates to the costs of the appeal.

5. Dr Gorman’s argument in relation to the Commission’s costs of the proceedings before the Tribunal ranges over matters largely if not entirely extraneous to issues determined by the Tribunal in the proceedings the subject of appeal.  It contains nothing which persuades us that the orders made in relation to costs on 10 December 2002 should be varied.

6. The Commission supports the orders for costs made on 10 December 2002. 

7. In these circumstances, no case has been made out for variation of the orders as to costs made by this Court on 10 December 2002. Those orders will stand as the orders of the Court.

   -oOo-

LAST UPDATED:     24/10/2008