RMIT v Galloway
[2023] VSC 155
•30 March 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST
S ECI 2023 01182
| ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (ABN 49 781 030 034) (and others according to the attached Schedule) | Plaintiffs |
| v | |
| BRADLEY GALLOWAY (and another according the attached Schedule) | Defendants |
---
JUDGE: | GARDE J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 March 2023 |
DATE OF RULING: | 30 March 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | RMIT v Galloway |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 155 |
---
COSTS – General principles following caveat removal – Indemnity costs.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiffs | Mr M McKillop | Minter Ellison |
| Mr Galloway appeared in person | ||
| No appearance for the Second Defendant |
HIS HONOUR:
Background
The parties have agreed that the seven caveats lodged by Bradley Galloway on various lands associated with Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (‘RMIT’) office-bearers and staff must be removed and injunctions granted to prevent Mr Galloway from lodging further caveats in the future. The final issue relates to the costs of the proceeding.
Past proceeding
The history of this matter is that in 2020 the RMIT sought removal of a caveat lodged by Mr Galloway on the title of a property in Bourke Street, Melbourne[1] (‘property’).
[1]RMIT v Galloway [2020] VSC 575.
Derham AsJ found that Mr Galloway had no claim for any interest in the property, describing the caveat as baseless. Derham AsJ removed the caveat and made an indemnity costs order against Mr Galloway.
As a result, Mr Galloway has past experience as to the likely adverse costs consequences of the removal of a caveat lodged without any foundation or which is an abuse of process.
Normal rule as to costs
The normal rule as to the costs of civil proceedings is that costs follow the event.[2] There is no reason to depart from the normal rule in this case.
[2]Milne v Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania (1956) 95 CLR 460 ,477 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Fullagar and Taylor JJ).
Relevant conduct
The position is quite the contrary. The affidavits filed in this proceeding show that Mr Galloway has threatened office-bearers and employees of the RMIT, including the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Academic Board Chair. He has left numerous aggressive and abusive voice and text messages with employees, and placed stickers in public places around Melbourne seriously defaming the second plaintiff. He has publicly stated his intention of inflicting legal costs and adverse media publicity on RMIT.
RMIT has had to commence proceedings to remove the seven caveats lodged by Mr Galloway. They were always an abuse of process. Mr Galloway has confirmed that he has no interest at all in the affected lands. Essentially the caveats were part of harassment tactics to get RMIT to do what he wanted. RMIT staff were used as a bargaining chip. There was never any justification for lodging the caveats or for the cost and inconvenience caused to others.
In summary, the external circumstances point to the need for an indemnity costs order.
Adjournment to get legal assistance
During one of his submissions, Mr Galloway suggested that he needed an adjournment to get legal assistance.
I reject that application on three grounds:
(a)Mr Galloway has been on notice since the commencement of this proceeding that a costs order would be sought against him;
(b)he has personal experience of an adverse costs order in a caveat proceeding where the caveat was baseless; and
(c)no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment and no useful purpose would be served by obtaining additional legal advice to advise on costs. The fundamental facts and circumstances would remain unchanged.
What would happen is that more costs would be incurred by the plaintiffs. That is a consequence that should be avoided.
Conclusion
Having regard to all of the considerations in this proceeding, it is fair and just that the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding are taxed on an indemnity basis and when taxed paid by Mr Galloway.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES
| ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ABN 49 781 030 034 | First Plaintiff |
| CHRISTOPHER JOHN CROWTHER HEWISON | Second Plaintiff |
| WEI SUN | Third Plaintiff |
| BRIONY TRINETTE LEWIS | Fourth Plaintiff |
| STEPHEN JOHN DUCKETT | Fifth Plaintiff |
| CLARE MARINA LEZAJA | Sixth Plaintiff |
| CLAIRE ELIZABETH MACKEN | Seventh Plaintiff |
| SHERMAN FRANCIS YOUNG | Eighth Plaintiff |
| - and - | |
| BRADLEY GALLOWAY | First Defendant |
| THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES | Second Defendant |
0
3
0