Tisdall v Webber (No 2)

[2010] FCA 650

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tisdall v Webber (No 2) [2010] FCA 650

Citation:	Tisdall v Webber (No 2) [2010] FCA 650
Parties:	PETER THOMAS TISDALL v DR TONY WEBBER, GWEN ASTEN, TIM FLANAGAN, PAUL HANSON, MEDICARE AUSTRALIA and DETERMINING AUTHORITY
File number(s):	VID 580 of 2009
Judge:	RYAN J
Date of judgment:	25 June 2010
Date of hearing:	15 March 2010
Date of last submissions:		4 and 11 June 2010
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the Applicant:	Dr J Bleechmore
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Coulter Roache Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 580 of 2009

BETWEEN:

PETER THOMAS TISDALL
Applicant

AND:

DR TONY WEBBER
First Respondent

GWEN ASTEN
Second Respondent

TIM FLANAGAN
Third Respondent

PAUL HANSON
Fourth Respondent

MEDICARE AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent

DETERMINING AUTHORITY
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JUNE 2010
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application herein, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 580 of 2009

BETWEEN:

PETER THOMAS TISDALL
Applicant

AND:

DR TONY WEBBER
First Respondent

GWEN ASTEN
Second Respondent

TIM FLANAGAN
Third Respondent

PAUL HANSON
Fourth Respondent

MEDICARE AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent

DETERMINING AUTHORITY
Sixth Respondent

JUDGE:	RYAN J
DATE:	25 JUNE 2010
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 26 May 2010, I delivered the substantive judgment in these proceedings: Tisdall v Webber [2010] FCA 501. Having ordered, on that date, that the amended application be dismissed, I indicated that I would hear each party on the question of costs, and provided a timetable for the filing and exchange of submissions on the question. Each party has made submissions as to the costs order which that party contends should be made, and it is to that issue that these reasons are directed.

2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant, Dr Tisdall, that there are special circumstances in the case which justify a departure from the ordinary rule as to costs, i.e. that costs should follow the event.  The basis for that contention is not easy to discern from the applicant’s written outline, which is in the following terms:

   As outlined during submissions, this is an unusual case in that the conduct of the applicant under review occurred in the year 2000.  It is undesirable and unfortunate that judgments which entail punitive consequences should be made in respect of the conduct of a person, by a court of law, a decade after that conduct occurred.  It is true that for much of the delay neither party is to blame.  However, after the orders of Gray J were set aside by consent, and the matter…