Layt v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2003] FCA 347

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Layt v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2003] FCA 347 ANDREA LAYT v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Q 137 OF 2002 DOWSETT J 11 APRIL 2003 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 137 OF 2002

BETWEEN: ANDREA LAYT

APPLICANT

AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DOWSETT J

DATE: 11 APRIL 2003

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Whilst I do not exclude the possibility that in some cases, the particular interest of the successful party in the substance of proceedings may be a relevant factor in determining whether the unsuccessful party should pay its costs, it would be better if the parties were to address the matter in advance of the hearing with a view to reaching agreement rather than in submissions as to costs after it has been decided. That is, as I understand it, a course which is not infrequently taken in the High Court on special leave applications. Government agencies are sometimes given special leave to appeal upon the basis that they undertake either to pay the respondent's costs in any event or not to ask for costs if successful. It may often be in the interests of such agencies to enter into those arrangements. However, where a matter proceeds to hearing without any such agreement, a court will rarely be justified in making an order for costs which reflects its own view as to the importance of the decision to the successful party. Most parties are interested in the outcome of litigation in which they are involved. Such interest can hardly be a proper basis for departing from the well-established practice that costs should follow the event. Further, neither the Court nor the other party will always be in a position to know whether or not the case is of particular importance to one side. 2 Although I have some sympathy for the appellant in this case, the reasons for that sympathy have nothing to do with the respondent. It is the University of Queensland whose conduct has led to this problem. I cannot hold that conduct against the respondent, who is unassociated with the university. In those circumstances, costs should follow the event. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.