Legal Research
Cases
Washington v Qantas Airways Limited

Washington v Qantas Airways Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 4 July 2014 37 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WASHINGTON v QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

[2014] FCCA 1413

Catchwords:
COSTS – Application for costs – matter settled prior to final hearing – application for costs to be pursuant to Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether costs according to event based Court scale should be awarded.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s.248G

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s.135

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s.3, 79

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr.1.06, 21.02, 21.10, 21.11, Sch.1

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Washington v Qantas Airways Limited [2013] FCCA 778
Perez & Ors v Fernandez (No.2) [2012] FMCA 183
Vivid Entertainment LLC & Ors v Digital Sinema Australia Pty Ltd & Ors (No. 2) [2007] FMCA 688
SBO Pictures Inc & Ors v Kaos Shop Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] FMCA 82
Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136
A.P.R.A v Cougars Tavern & Ors [2008] FMCA 369
Top Plus Pty Ltd & Ors v K Square Pty Ltd & Ors (No.4) [2010] FMCA 671
Phonographic Performance & Ors v Adelaide City Entertainment [2005] FMCA 923
Microsoft Corporation v Wordsworth [2007] FMCA 2071
PPCA Ltd v All Girls Entertainment Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] FMCA 593
APRA Ltd v Riceboy Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 942
Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle & Ors (No.2) [2007] FMCA 1260
Facton Ltd & Ors v Ching Lim Sports Cap Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2010] FMCA 735
Burns v Media Options Group Pty & Ors (No.2) [2013] FCCA 2016
Ruddock & Ors v Vadarlis & Others (No.2) [2001] FCA 1865; (2001) 115 FCR 229
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11
Noble v Baldwin & Anor (No.2) [2011] FMCA 700
Ladakh Pty Ltd v Quick Fashion Pty Ltd & Anor (No.2) [2011] FMCA 712
Ladakh Pty Ltd v Cao & Anor (No.2) [2010] FMCA 968
Travers v New South Wales [2001] FMCA 18; (2001) 163 FLR 99
Shiels v James [2000] FMCA 2
Wiggins v Department of Defence – Navy (No.3) [2006] FMCA 970

Applicant:

MEGAN ALEXANDER WASHINGTON

Respondent:

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

File Number:

SYG 449 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Nicholls

Hearing date:

20 February 2014

Date of Last Submission:

20 February 2014

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

4 July 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J M Hennessy SC

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Gilbert + Tobin

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr N R Murray

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Allens

ORDERS

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs for the application for costs as agreed or assessed pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 449 of 2013

MEGAN ALEXANDER WASHINGTON

Applicant

And

QANTAS…

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 Washington v Qantas Airways Limited 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: [2014] FCCA 1413
Decision Date: 4 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Washington (the applicant) brought proceedings against Qantas Airways Limited (the respondent) concerning a dispute that was settled prior to a final hearing. The applicant sought an order for costs pursuant to the *Federal Court Rules 2011* (Cth), specifically requesting costs to be awarded according to the event based Court scale.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether, in circumstances where a matter has settled before a final hearing, the Court should award costs on the basis of the event, as provided for by the Court scale. This required an interpretation of the relevant rules governing costs in the Federal Court.

Justice Nicholls considered the principles of costs orders in settled matters. The Court noted that generally, where a matter settles by agreement, each party bears their own costs unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary or exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from this general rule. The Court's discretion regarding costs is broad, but the default position in the absence of a final determination on the merits is that parties are responsible for their own expenses. The Court found no basis to depart from this general principle in the present case.

The Court therefore made no order as to costs.

Orders