SEIDLER v Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology and Anor (No.3)

[2016] FCCA 1623

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SEIDLER v ROYAL MELBOURNE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANOR (NO.3) [2016] FCCA 1623

Catchwords:
COSTS – Costs order – whether each party should pay its own cost – fixed costs ordered against the applicant.

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. Counsel for the first respondent has moved for a fixed costs order in relation to these proceedings. The Court has refused leave to the applicant to continue the proceedings. The application for leave had been fixed for hearing before this Court on 19 May 2016. The application for leave to continue proceedings has been refused. The Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate matter in which to make a fixed costs order. The Court was provided with information in relation to the costs incurred in respect of counsel and solicitors and hourly rates applied. The Court is satisfied that the first respondent has incurred party/party costs in the sum of $12,000 and that the said amount is reasonable.

2. The Court is satisfied that the appropriate party/party costs order in the present case is $12,000. The Court heard the applicant as to whether or not a costs order should be made. The applicant contended that each party should pay their own costs and sought to re-agitate the merits of the proceedings.

3. I am satisfied that this is the type of matter in which it is in the interests of the administration of justice and finality to make a fixed costs order. This is not an appropriate matter to order that costs be taxed.

4. I order the applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $12,000.

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

Date: 6 July 2016