Strano v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) - [2016] ACTSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Strano v Australian Capital Territory (No 2)
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 206
Hearing Date:	10 February 2016
DecisionDate:	5 August 2016
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim for compensation begun in the Magistrates Court by Originating Claim dated 19 December 2012. 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – Costs – court’s discretion to make no order as to costs in a “test case” – whether plaintiff’s action a “test case” – proceedings asserted to be for the primary objective of testing scope of statutory cause of action under Human Rights Act in comparison to common law action for wrongful imprisonment – relevance of plaintiff seeking compensation to determination of whether action a “test case” – action not a “test case” – plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs.
Legislation Cited:	Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 18(7)
Cases Cited:	Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 Attrill v Richmond River Shire Council (1995) 38 NSWLR 545 Barlow v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [No 2] [2013] ACTSC 82 CSR Limited v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1 Insurance Australia Ltd & Anor v Albrecht (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 94 Jacka v Australian Capital Territory [2015] ACTSC 239 Morroand Ors v Australian Capital Territory (2009) 234 FLR 71 Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 Rowe v Electoral Commissioner (2010) 243 CLR 1 Sluggett v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 1060 State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow [2008] SASC 370 Strano v Australian Capital Territory [2016] ACTSC 4
Parties:	Salvatore Strano (Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Crispin (Plaintiff) Mr P Garrisson SC (Defendant)
Solicitors John O’Keefe (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 308 of 2014

Background

On 2 February 2016 I delivered judgment in the matter of Strano v Australian Capital Territory [2016] ACTSC 4. The plaintiff had claimed compensation from the ACT for what he said was unlawful imprisonment for a period of three months in 2005. The claim was based on a cause of action said to arise under s 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) independent of the common law tort of false imprisonment. In a strike-out application brought by the ACT, I concluded that, whatever the nature of the plaintiff’s claim against the ACT, it had been filed after the expiry of the relevant limitation period and could not be maintained.

On 10 February 2016 I heard the parties on the orders that would be necessary to give effect to my judgment of 2 February 2016. On that day the defendant submitted that the appropriate order would be judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff did not consent to this order, but nor did he make submissions opposing it. I shall make this order to finalise the proceedings.

Costs order

Also at the 10…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Strano v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] ACTSC 206
Decision Date: 5 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Strano v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Strano, who was seeking compensation from the Australian Capital Territory for alleged wrongful imprisonment. The proceedings were initially commenced in the Magistrates Court and subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court. The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the statutory cause of action under the Human Rights Act and whether the case could be classified as a "test case." Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's primary objective was to test the scope of the statutory cause of action compared to the common law action for wrongful imprisonment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's pursuit of compensation was relevant to the determination of whether the action was a "test case."

The court found that the plaintiff's action was not a "test case" because the primary objective was not to test the scope of the statutory cause of action but rather to seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment. The court reasoned that since the plaintiff was genuinely seeking compensation and not just testing the law, the action did not qualify as a "test case." Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for compensation.

In summary, the court held that the plaintiff's action was not a "test case," and therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs. The plaintiff's claim for compensation was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim for compensation begun in the Magistrates Court by Originating Claim dated 19 December 2012.

2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.