Rainsford v State Of Victoria and Anor (No.3) (Corrigendum)

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RAINSFORD v STATE OF VICTORIA & ANOR (No.3) (CORRIGENDUM)

[2004] FMCA 776

HUMAN RIGHTS – Costs – whether proceedings were of a public interest nature – whether unsuccessful applicant should bear costs – whether a certificate under Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 had been given.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981, s.10, subs.14

Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 188 ALR 143
Kent v Cavanagh (1973) 1 ACTR 43
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Ryan Wayne Minns v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (No. 2) [2002] FMCA 197

Applicant:

JAMES RAINSFORD

First Respondent:

STATE OF VICTORIA

Second Respondent:

GROUP 4 CORRECTIONS SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 050 069 255)

File No:

MLG 869 of 2002

Delivered on:

1 November 2004

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

1 November 2004

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Gray

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr R Niall

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Corrections Victoria

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Ms D Mortimer SC

Solicitors for the Second

Respondent:

Allens Arthur Robinson

CORRIGENDUM

In the Judgment of Federal Magistrate Raphael dated 1 November 2004:

The reference to file MZ 590 of 2003 should be deleted from Page 1 of the Cover Sheet and Orders.

The reference to file MZ 590 of 2003 should be deleted from Page 1 of the Reasons for Judgment.

I certify that the preceding [3] paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to Judgment of Raphael FM.

Associate:

Date: 15 December 2004

ORDERS

The applicant pay the first and second respondent's costs of proceedings numbered MZ753 of 2001 and MZ869 of 2002 including any reserved costs other than the costs of the written submissions of the first and second respondents dated 30 October 2003;
The costs referred to above shall be assessed in accordance with schedule 1 of the Federal Magistrates Court rules and in the event of any dispute between the parties it be referred to Registrar Adele Byrne of the Federal Magistrates Court in Melbourne for adjudication;
The costs referred to above include the costs of today.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Rainsford, the applicant, sought a review of a decision made by the State of Victoria and Group 4 Corrections Services Pty Ltd, the first and second respondents respectively. The dispute involved a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the matter was heard and determined by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. The primary concern was whether the proceedings were of a public interest nature, and if so, whether the unsuccessful applicant should bear the costs of the proceedings. Additionally, the court had to determine if a certificate under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 had been issued.

The court examined the public interest aspect of the case by considering precedents such as Ruddock v Vadarlis, Kent v Cavanagh, Oshlack v Richmond River Council, and Ryan Wayne Minns v State of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the proceedings were of significant public interest due to the nature of the disability discrimination claim. However, the court found that the proceedings did not reach the threshold of public interest required to shift the burden of costs onto the unsuccessful party. The court relied on the established criteria to assess the public interest, ultimately concluding that the case did not meet the necessary criteria for such a shift in cost responsibility.

Given the determination that the proceedings did not hold sufficient public interest, the court ruled that the applicant should bear the costs of the proceedings. This included the costs of the first and second respondents for proceedings numbered MZ753 of 2001 and MZ869 of 2002, with certain exceptions. The court provided detailed instructions on the assessment of these costs, including the application of the Federal Magistrates Court rules and the process for resolving any disputes regarding the costs.

The final orders mandated that the applicant pay the specified costs, with provisions for assessment and potential adjudication by the Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court in Melbourne if disputes arose. This ruling ensured that the court's decision on the costs was clear and enforceable, providing a definitive resolution to the financial aspect of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established