Case: Inglis v Moore (No 2) (1979) 25 ALR 453
Outcome: cited
However, the respondents submit that, as the one set of solicitors and counsel was retained for the several applicants (as had to be the case), it cannot be said that the first applicant incurred any liability for costs in relation to the proceeding. I do not draw that conclusion. I do not know what arrangements existed between the applicants. Even if there were a private arrangement by which one applicant rather than another agreed to bear costs, that would not have any significance ( Inglis v Moore (No 2) (1979) 25 ALR 453). The fact that a third party is involved in funding the costs of a party would not normally have any significance in relation to an entitlement to an order for costs by the party. The fact that one applicant is publicly funded does not alter the situation in principle. 6 Another matter raised by the respondents is the effect of s 45DC and s 84(2) of the Trade Practices Act . The effect of these provisions was raised late against the first and second respondents. It is submitted that there would need to be an adjustment of costs against the first and second respondents on that account. It was also submitted that the third, fourth and fifth respondents should have the benefit of an order for costs as they are protected by s 45DC(4) from payment of damages for breach of s 45D. I do not accept the effect of those arguments. The substance of the case had to be defended. There was only one set of costs involved in doing so. The provisions in question were only relevant to which of the respondents would be liable if the substance of the case was established, as it was. The protection afforded by s 45DC(4) is from the payment of damages only. The finding of breach remains. In my view, the appropriate result is that there be no order either way as to the costs relating to the third, fourth and fifth respondents. I can see no proper basis for relieving the first and second respondents of payment of the costs of the first applicant in relation to the s 45D claim. 7 Thus, in my opinion, the first applicant is entitled to an order against the first and second respondents for those costs attributable to the s 45D claim, which would not have been incurred in pursuing the Workplace Relations Act claim. In practical terms, these can be identified as being the costs associated with proof of damages. In my opinion, the other elements of the cause of action were inextricably entwined with the Workplace Relations Act substratum of facts. That overlap, after all, was the basis for permitting joinder in the first place. The first applicant should have the costs of the argument as to costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 3 June 2008 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr RM Goot AM SC, Mr MJ Heath Solicitor for the Applicants: Minter Ellison Lawyers Counsel for the Respondents: Mr JH Pearce Solicitor for the Respondents: Taylor &amp; Scott Date of Last Submission: 20 May 2008 Date of Judgment: 3 June 2008 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/812.html