Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia (Costs)

[2022] FCA 669

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia (Costs) [2022] FCA 669  

File number(s):

VID 836 of 2019

Judgment of:

WHEELAHAN J

Date of judgment:

9 June 2022

Catchwords:

COSTS – no special circumstances – costs to follow the event.

Cases cited:

Beaman v Bond [2017] FCAFC 142; 254 FCR 480

Keddy v Foxall [1955] VR 320

Lollis v Loulatzis (No 2) [2008] VSC 35

Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia [2022] FCA 606

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Victoria

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

13

Date of last submission/s:

7 June 2022

Date of hearing:

Determined on the papers

Solicitor for the Applicant:

P. Jayawardena York of Pradeepa Jayawardena York Law Practice

Counsel for the Respondent:

M. L. Baker

Solicitor for the Respondent:

King & Wood Mallesons

ORDERS

VID 836 of 2019

BETWEEN:

ULTIMATE VISION INVENTIONS PTY LTD

Applicant

AND:

INNOVATION AND SCIENCE AUSTRALIA

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	WHEELAHAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WHEELAHAN J:

1. I gave judgment in this proceeding, which was an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on 24 May 2022: Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd v Innovation and Science Australia [2022] FCA 606. I ordered that the appeal be dismissed. The respondent sought costs of the proceeding, which the applicant opposed. In order to give the legal practitioners for the parties an opportunity to make submissions as to costs with the benefit of the court’s reasons for judgment, I made orders that provided for the filing and service of written submissions relating to costs which, if filed, would result in costs being determined on the papers.

2. Both parties filed written submissions in accordance with the court’s orders. The respondent maintained its application for costs of the proceeding, which the applicant opposed.

3. The applicant accepted that in the absence of special circumstances, costs would normally follow the event. For the reasons that follow, there are no special circumstances arising in relation to this proceeding, and accordingly costs, including reserved costs, should follow the event.

4. The applicant advanced eight features of the proceeding which it submitted amounted to special circumstances, the combination of which justified the court making no order as to costs. I will address each of those features in turn.

5. First, the applicant submitted that it had sought to settle the matter at an early stage and relied upon an open letter dated 24 September 2020 sent by the applicant’s solicitors to the respondent’s solicitors. The letter is no more than an invitation to the respondent to explore the possibility of resolution of all matters to which the applicant and the respondent were parties, and contained no offer. There was no submission by the applicant that…