JUDGMENT No. «LQ: ooo Zeone IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. OG 38 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN 3 TERESA LIDDLE Applicant AND : COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED and PETER MORLEY First Respondents AND : HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Second Respondent CORAM: Spender J PLACE: Brisbane DATE: 16 December 1994 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT the costs of the first respondents be paid by the applicant, together with all reserved costs and including any costs reserved in respect of any notice of motion, those costs to be taxed if not agreed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is deait with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. RECEIVED 16JAN 1995 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. QG 38 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN : TERESA LIDDLE Applicant AND : COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED and PETER MORLEY First Respondents AND: : HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSTON Second Respondent CORAM: Spender J PLACE: Brisbane DATE: 16 December 1994 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for costs by the first respondents, Peter Morley and the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited, 1n respect of proceedings QG38 of 1994. The history of the matter is contained in the various reports of listings, and the position is that Ms Liddle has throughout acted for herself, although there have been attempts by her in the course of those proceedings to have legal representation obtained in respect of the formulation of what her case was and the material on which she relied in Support of that application. There were, as those records of listings show, a Series of hearings where attempts were made to permit Ms Liddle to formulate an application with affidavit material. Notwithstanding the repetition of appearances before the court, no actual resolution of that primary question was ever achieved, and on 12 August 1994 the court directed that an amended application and supplementary affidavits be filed and served by 15 September 1994. The court further ordered that if the amended application and affidavits were not filed as the court directed, then the proceedings would stand dismissed. This guillotine order, of course, is one of last resort, and is only made against a background where, in its absence, injustice would be caused to the other parties to the litigation. It was a considered order having regard to the interests of all the parties in the litigation and the detailed history of the litigation as it stood at that time. For reasons which are perhaps understandable but nonetheless which are of no comfort to the respondents, Ms Liddle was unable to file the amended application and affidavits that the court had directed within the time the court ordered, and, as a consequence, those proceedings stand dismissed, Today an application is made by the first respondents for their costs of those proceedings. The order for costs is resisted by Ms Liddle, and she has referred to a number of matters. Her submissions, I have to say, are somewhat diffuse, and they touch on a proceeding which is available to her and is being prosecuted with legal assistance in the Supreme Court. Those considerations, however, do not affect, 1t seems to me, the correctness of the order that I am to make concerning costs of these proceedings. In accordance with the ordinary rule, I propose to order that the respondents, Peter Morley and Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited, have their costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs; those costs to be taxed if not agreed. Those costs include any costs reserved in respect of any notice of motion. The ordinary rule as to costs should apply, in my view, in the present case, and nothing has been put before me to indicate that the ordinary rule as to costs should not apply in this case. I note specifically, however, that there is no application for costs by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The final matter concerns a fear that Ms Liddle has expressed concerning the Federal Court records and possible consequences to her should they be interfered with. As the material contained in the correspondence file in this proceeding indicates, there have been a number of matters raised by Ms Liddle concerning tampering with records and transcripts and her complaints have been the subject of inquiry and representations. An earlier complaint as to the adequacy of the transcript of an appearance before me I caused to be investigated, and, as I indicated in the transcripts of subsequent proceedings, my then associate compared the actual transcript with the tape recorded conversation and the effect 1s that the transcript was one of integrity, there being some matters omitted, being of the "um" and "ah" variety; some matters of comment in the nature of omissions of comments by me, like, "all right," or "I am sorry," when I have corrected myself; the avoidance of repetition in respect of the words, "There is a question - there is a question about the accuracy of the record of the proceedings below". The complaint of Ms Liddle caused me concern at the time and required investigation, the result being that the transcript was a substantially complete record of the proceedings of that directions hearing. However, because of the fears that Ms Liddle has expressed today, I want to assure her that absolutely no document or record of any kind relating to these proceedings will be destroyed. I cannot speak in respect of the tape recordings which are within the custody of the shorthand reporting service, but so far as the Federal Court's records are concerned nothing will be tampered with, interfered with or destroyed. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages fare a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein 9f the Honourable Justi e/ Spender. | | Associate ] Date: 16 December 1994 a Counsel for the applicant: Ms Liddle in person Solicitors for the first respondents: Ms A. M. Dougherty of O'Mara, Patterson & Perrier Solicitors for the second respondent: Mr J. Brooks of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Date of Hearing: 16 December 1994 7 te aa tk, At Fe. Pete ea rk at ae as