Seidler v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

[2016] FCCA 1588

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SEIDLER v ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANOR [2016] FCCA 1588

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – notice of discontinuance.

COSTS – orders for costs – whether the costs should be taxed – costs ordered against the applicant.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.02

Applicant: KATHRYN SEIDLER

First Respondent: ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Second Respondent: OPEN UNIVERSITIES AUSTRALIA

File Number: SYG 632 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 28 June 2016

Date of Last Submission: 28 June 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms R Sweet

Solicitors for the First Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Solicitors for the Second Respondent:	Mr J Harrowell

ORDERS

1. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $12,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 632 of 2016

KATHRYN SEIDLER

Applicant

And

ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

First Respondent

OPEN UNIVERSITIES AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In these proceedings, the applicant joined Open Universities Australia as a respondent. The applicant has filed a notice of discontinuance against that party (the second respondent) and the second respondent is entitled to seek costs under r.13.02 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.  The Open Universities Australia has applied as it is entitled to for an order for costs in respect of the proceedings discontinued against it.  The costs have been identified as being in the order of $11,889 with further unbilled work.  On a party-party basis the solicitor for the second respondent accepts that their costs are likely to be in the order of $8000.

2. The Court has heard the applicant in relation to whether or not a fixed costs order should be made against the applicant.  The applicant has asked for the matter to be taxed.  It is not appropriate in this Court to tax costs.  This Court generally orders fixed costs in proceedings before it in order to bring finality to any scope for dispute between the parties.  This is an appropriate case in which a fixed order should be made. I am satisfied that the respondent has incurred party/party costs of $8000 and that it is reasonable to order the applicant to pay costs fixed in that amount.

3. The applicant sought to advance matters relating to irrelevant considerations concerning other parties in response to the opportunity given to further address the Court as to whether there should be a fixed costs order. The applicant put submissions that were not in any way relevant to whether costs should be fixed or taxed and, in those circumstances, the Court stopped the applicant. No relevant submission was put as to costs and it is in the interests of the parties to bring finality to the opportunity for dispute and to fix costs. This is not an appropriate matter to order that costs be taxed. In the course of delivering this judgment on three occasions Ms Seidler interrupted the Court, and on each occasion the Court had to tell Ms Seidler to stop interrupting.  It is appropriate that the applicant pay the second respondent’s costs in respect of the discontinued proceedings fixed in the amount of $8000. 

4. I order the applicant to pay the second respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $8000.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 6 July 2016