FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Rana v University of South Australia (2) [2007] FCA 941 RANJIT RANA v UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA SAD 52 OF 2006 BESANKO J 19 JUNE 2007 ADELAIDE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 52 OF 2006 BETWEEN: RANJIT RANA Applicant AND: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Respondent JUDGE: BESANKO J DATE OF ORDER: 19 JUNE 2007 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 52 OF 2006 BETWEEN: RANJIT RANA Applicant AND: UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Respondent JUDGE: BESANKO J DATE: 19 JUNE 2007 PLACE: ADELAIDE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 31 May 2007 I made an order dismissing the proceedings brought by Mr Ranjit Rana against the University of South Australia. I delivered reasons for making that order: Rana v University of South Australia [2007] FCA 816. 2 The University applies for its costs of the proceedings to be paid on an indemnity basis. The University tendered evidence on its application. The evidence establishes that about two months before the trial, the University made an offer to Mr Rana whereby it would pay him, with no admission of liability, the amount of $400. The letter from the solicitors for the University to Mr Rana which contains this offer states that it is an open letter and, "our client reserves the right to submit it to the court on issue of costs at a later time, should the offer be rejected". A letter from the solicitors for the University to Mr Rana dated 4 October 2006 was also put before me. The letter points out that Mr Rana had not filed any medical evidence in relation to his claim and it asserted that he had put forward no evidence in support of his allegation that his losses could be quantified at $1 million. The letter points out that the only evidence Mr Rana had put forward related to his alleged payment of $350 for the tickets. 3 For his part, Mr Rana tendered an affidavit which established that he made an offer to the University to settle his claim for the sum of $10,000. That proposal is contained in an email from Mr Rana to the solicitors for the University dated 12 August 2006 wherein Mr Rana states: "My proposal is to settle for A$10,000 (subject to negotiation)." 4 In support of its submissions that its costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis, the University relied on the following matters: 1. The University submits that Mr Rana's claim had no prospects of success. Mr Rana did not put forward any evidence of loss. He did not put forward any medical evidence. The University submits that Mr Rana's case was based on allegations that should not have been made and that key allegations made by him were found to be untrue. 2. The University submits that it made an offer to settle the proceedings for $400. 3. The University submits that Mr Rana made a claim for $1 million and yet proved no loss. 4. The University submits that I can take into account on the question of costs my finding that Mr Rana had interfered with the receipt referred to paragraph [27 ] of my reasons. 5 In my opinion, an order for indemnity costs should be made. I have had regard to the relevant authorities and, in particular, Colgate Palmolive v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225 and Robinson v Aware Industries Ltd (unreported, Weinberg J, 1 October, 1998). 6 In my opinion, this is an appropriate case for the award of indemnity costs. Mr Rana made allegations about payment for the tickets and what occurred at the Convention Centre which were critical to his case and he must have known were untrue. Those allegations should not have been made. He claimed that he had suffered loss and damage of $1 million but he proved no loss or damage. He altered a document, namely, a receipt, so that his case would appear stronger. These circumstances alone justify an award of indemnity costs. A further and probably independent reason for awarding indemnity costs is that he refused an offer of $400 in relation to a claim which I dismissed. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to order that costs be paid on an indemnity basis. 7 The order of the Court is that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate: Dated: 22 June 2007 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Tom Martin Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison Date of Hearing: 14 June 2007 Date of Judgment: 19 June 2007