Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2)

Case [2021] QSC 51

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2021] QSC 51

PARTIES:

KENT MATTHEW QUINLAN

(Plaintiff)

v

ERM POWER LIMITED ACN 122 259 23

(First Defendant)
PHILIP MATTHEW ST BAKER
(Third Defendant)
TREVOR CHARLES ST BAKER
(Fourth Defendant)
ANTHONY GEORGE BELLAS
(Fifth Defendant)
ANTONINO MARIO IANNELLO
(Sixth Defendant)
MARTIN ROGER GREENBERG
(Seventh Defendant)
JAMES BRETT LOCHRAN HEADING
(Eighth Defendant)
JONATHAN HUGH STRETCH
(Ninth Defendant)
JULIEANNE MARGARET ALROE
(Tenth Defendant)
ALBERT GOLLER
(Eleventh Defendant)
GEORGANNE MARIE HODGES
(Twelfth Defendant)
PHILIP ANDREW DAVIS

(Thirteenth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 6601 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDERS:

The plaintiff, first defendant, third to seventh and ninth to thirteenth defendants bear their own costs of the applications filed on 29 September 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION –– determination of costs of the strike out applications – where s 1317AH of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a claimant in a proceeding in relation to a matter arising under s 1317AE of the Act must not be ordered to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings, except in accordance with s 1317AH(3) – where one of the exceptions is where the court is satisfied the claimant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs – whether the plaintiff’s opposition to the strike out applications amounted to an unreasonable act or omission, such that the court should make an order that he pay part of the defendants’ costs

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1317AH

Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 3) (2007) 162 FCR 392; [2007] FCA 879
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Ors v Clarke (2008) 170 FCR 574; [2008] FCAFC 143

Stanley v Service to Youth Council Inc (No 3) (2014) 225 FCR 357; [2014] FCA 716
COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC and K Stoyle for the plaintiff/respondent
D O’Brien QC and A Nicholas for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth defendants/applicants

Jamal, N (sol) for the eighth defendant
SOLICITORS:

Sterling Law for the plaintiff/respondent
Clayton Utz for the first defendant/applicant
Carter Newell for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth defendants/applicants

Wotton & Kearney for the eighth defendant

  1. On 26 February 2021, I delivered my reasons for judgment in relation to the strike out applications brought by the first defendant (ERM) and the third to seventh and ninth to thirteenth defendants (the natural person defendants):  Quinlan v ERM Power Pty Ltd & Ors [2021] QSC 35.

  2. Directions were made on that day for the filing of brief submissions in relation to the costs of the applications, following which I would determine the issue on the papers.   The requirement to be brief was not complied with by ERM…

Continue reading Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2) [2021] QSC 51
Case
[2021] QSC 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2) was a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Quinlan, initiated proceedings against ERM Power Ltd and several other defendants, seeking remedies under the whistleblower protection and public interest disclosure legislation. The primary dispute involved the determination of costs incurred during the strike out applications, particularly under section 1317AH of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court needed to decide whether the plaintiff's opposition to the strike out applications constituted an unreasonable act or omission, which would permit the imposition of costs under section 1317AH(3) of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's actions in opposing the strike out applications could be classified as unreasonable, thereby justifying an order for him to pay part of the defendants' costs. Section 1317AH of the Act generally protects claimants from being ordered to pay costs, unless the court finds that an unreasonable act or omission by the claimant caused the other party to incur those costs. The court had to carefully examine the conduct of the plaintiff and assess whether it met the threshold of being unreasonable under the statute.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the plaintiff's opposition to the strike out applications did not amount to an unreasonable act or omission. The court found that the plaintiff's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, the plaintiff should not be ordered to pay part of the defendants' costs. The court's decision hinged on the balance of the equities and the specific conduct of the plaintiff in the context of the litigation.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff, along with the first defendant, and certain other defendants, were to bear their own costs of the applications filed on 29 September 2020. This decision ensured that the plaintiff was not penalised for his actions in opposing the strike out applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff, first defendant, third to seventh and ninth to thirteenth defendants bear their own costs of the applications filed on 29 September 2020.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.