Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney (No 2)

[2007] FCA 1042

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney (No 2) [2007] FCA 1042

COSTS – no reason why costs should not follow the event

Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney [2007] FCA 880

PETER ANTHONY WALSH v UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY
NSD 832 OF 2006

BUCHANAN J
11 JULY 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 832 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	PETER ANTHONY WALSH Applicant
AND:	UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JULY 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings, including the notice of motion filed on 9 March 2007.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 832 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	PETER ANTHONY WALSH Applicant
AND:	UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE:	11 JULY 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

1. This judgment deals only with a question of costs.  On 15 June 2007 I ordered that Mr Walsh’s statement of claim and application be, respectively, struck out and dismissed (Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney [2007] FCA 880). Costs were reserved. Written submissions have now been made about that issue.

2. The respondent seeks its costs in relation to both the notice of motion dealt with in the earlier judgment and of the proceedings as a whole.  It submits, in relation to each, that costs should follow the event.

3. Although the respondent’s submissions made a formal distinction between the costs of the notice of motion and the costs of the proceedings as a whole in my view it is not necessary to give them separate consideration.  Consideration of the notice of motion disposed of the proceedings in their entirety.  There are no features of the proceedings, or the notice of motion, which require that individual attention be given to each of them.

4. In the ordinary course the respondent is entitled to its costs unless there was some particular feature of the proceedings which suggests that the Court’s discretion should be exercised in a different way.  Mr Walsh’s written submissions do not really come to grips with the principles which govern the award of costs.  He has not advanced any matter which would require or justify an exercise of discretion against the respondent, so far as costs are concerned.

5. In the circumstances it is appropriate that costs follow the event and I will so order.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.

Associate:

Dated:        11 July 2007

Applicant:	The applicant was self represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Peter Brereton
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing:	Matter determined on the papers
Date of Judgment:	11 July 2007