Wodrow v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCA 403

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wodrow v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FCA 403 PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – costs – enforcement of costs order – delay – the Court's discretion in matters of costs – Federal Court Rules Order 62 – where enforcement is within statutory limitation period – applicability of s 14 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) – Commonwealth as a model litigant Federal Court Rules, O 62 r 17, O 62 r 22 Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), ss 11, 14 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 cited TA Field Pty Ltd v Frigmobile of Australia Pty Ltd [1978] 2 NSWLR 488 cited Busby v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1992] FCA 78 cited Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404 cited WILLIAM WODROW v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AG 6 of 1992 STONE J 2 MAY 2003 CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 6 OF 1992

BETWEEN: WILLIAM WODROW

APPLICANT

AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE OF ORDER: 2 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE: CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The notice of motion filed on 2 August 2001 be dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs of the notice of motion.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 6 OF 1992

BETWEEN: WILLIAM WODROW

APPLICANT

AND: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 2 MAY 2003

PLACE: CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Mr Wodrow, was employed as an engineer by the respondent from 1 December 1970 to 24 July 1980 when he retired on invalidity grounds. The applicant alleged that his incapacity resulted from chronic anxiety and neurosis caused by the circumstances of his employment. His claim for damages in tort and contract brought in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was initially successful and damages in the sum of $184,472.75 were awarded. 2 On appeal before the Full Federal Court the award of damages to the applicant was set aside and, on 7 September 1993, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the action and of the appeal. Although the High Court refused special leave to appeal that decision on 12 October 1994, it was not until 15 June 2001, that is more than six years later, that the Commonwealth filed an application for taxation of its costs, claiming only the disbursements that it had incurred. 3 By notice of motion the applicant now moves the Court for orders as follows:: 1. That the Respondent's application for taxation of a Bill of Costs be dismissed pursuant to Order 62 rule 17 of the Rules. 2. In the Alternative, that the application be dismissed on the grounds of estoppel, abuse of process, improper purpose, bad faith and oppressive conduct. 3. That the proceedings pursuant to the Order made on 7 September 1993 be permanently stayed. 4. In the further alternative, by reason of Order 62 rule 22 that the Respondent's costs be allowed as to $1.00. 5. That the Respondent pay the costs of this application.' 4 During the course of the hearing the applicant resiled to some extent from these grounds. He specifically abandoned his claim of estoppel and submitted rather that the respondent's conduct was such that the Court in its discretion should grant him the relief sought. The basis of this discretion was said to be the Court's jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its own processes. The applicant also submitted that the relevant limitation period had expired and that the respondent was therefore out of time to enforce its costs order.