Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2)

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.