FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Picos v Servcorp Limited (No 2) [2015] FCA 494
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
Applicant | |
AND: | First Respondent MELVERNIC PTY LTD Second Respondent ENIDEB PTY LIMITED Third Respondent HWL EBSWORTH LAWYERS Fourth Respondent SNEDDEN, HALL & GALLOP Fifth Respondent EMILY SHOEMARK Sixth Respondent DENNIS MARTIN Seventh Respondent MAGISTRATE BERNADETTE BOSS Eighth Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant is to pay the costs of the second to seventh respondents of and incidental to the applications for summary dismissal filed by the second to seventh respondents, and otherwise in the proceedings, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 1179 of 2014 |
BETWEEN: | CONNIE LOUISE PICOS Applicant |
AND: | SERVCORP LIMITED First Respondent MELVERNIC PTY LTD Second Respondent ENIDEB PTY LIMITED Third Respondent HWL EBSWORTH LAWYERS Fourth Respondent SNEDDEN, HALL & GALLOP Fifth Respondent EMILY SHOEMARK Sixth Respondent DENNIS MARTIN Seventh Respondent MAGISTRATE BERNADETTE BOSS Eighth Respondent |
JUDGE: | PERRY J |
DATE: | 20 May 2015 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 On 15 April 2015, I dismissed the application by Miss Picos for me to disqualify myself from continuing to sit and the related application for leave to lead further evidence on that application: Picos v Servcorp Limited [2015] FCA 344 (Picos v Servcorp (No. 1)). In that decision, I also dismissed the proceedings as against the second to eighth respondents inclusive for want of jurisdiction, including the interlocutory applications filed by Miss Picos on 28 November 2014, 5 December 2014, 29 January 2015 and 2 February 2015 seeking various orders. Miss Picos sought damages in the sum of $3 billion for alleged contraventions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) against the first to eighth respondents.
2 On the question of costs, I ordered that there be no order as to costs with respect to the eighth respondent who had filed a submitting appearance, or the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, intervening, who had indicated that he did not seek costs. However, I reserved the question of costs with respect to the second to seventh respondents in order to afford Miss Picos the opportunity to be heard, as she had requested, while also intimating that it was my preliminary view that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply (Picos v Servcorp (No 1) at [68]).
3 Subsequently, on 17 April 2015 Miss Picos filed short submissions pursuant to my orders on 15 April 2015. The second to seventh respondents filed short submissions in reply contending that no reason had been given as to why the ordinary rule as to costs should not apply.
4 I accept the submissions of the second to seventh respondents. In her submissions on costs, Miss Picos stated that she “raises Federal Court Rules 40.01 to 40.08 regarding costs”. These are all of the rules within Division 40.1 of Part 40 which deal generally with orders as to costs. No specific rule upon which reliance is placed is identified in Miss Picos’ submissions. Nor do her submissions identify the position for which she contends on the question of costs, or explain the relevance of the allegations of fact on various matters made in her submissions to the question of costs.
5 Accordingly, given that the second to seventh respondents were wholly successful in applying for summary dismissal of the proceedings instituted against them and in resisting Miss Picos’ various interlocutory applications, and that no reason has been given as to why they should be deprived of their costs, I consider that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply: Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Assn Inc (1986) ATPR 40-478 at 48,136 (Toohey J).
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perry. |
