Pathmanathan v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2019] FCA 1830

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pathmanathan v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency [2019] FCA 1830 File number: VID 782 of 2018

Judge: STEWARD J

Date of judgment: 8 November 2019

Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ss 46PF, 46PH, 46PO, 46PSA

Cases cited: Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 Pathmanathan v St John of God Healthcare Inc [2019] FCA 1460 Refaat v Barry (No 2) [2015] VSCA 268

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Date of last submissions: 4 November 2019

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 18

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant was self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms E Latif

Solicitor for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

ORDERS VID 782 of 2018

BETWEEN: DR AJINTHA PATHMANATHAN Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION AGENCY Respondent

JUDGE: STEWARD J DATE OF ORDER: 8 NOVEMBER 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of this proceeding as agreed or assessed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWARD J: 1 On 5 September 2019, I delivered reasons dismissing an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission to terminate certain complaints made by the applicant against the respondent Agency pursuant to ss 46PF(1)(b) and 46PH(1)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the "AHRC Act"): Pathmanathan v St John of God Healthcare Inc [2019] FCA 1460. In these reasons I adopt the same terminology used in my earlier decision. I ordered the parties to confer on the issue of costs and to file agreed orders or, in the absence of agreement, submissions limited to two pages in length. 2 The parties were unable to agree on what costs order the Court should make. The Agency sought an ordinary order of costs against the applicant. The applicant, without the leave of the Court, lodged an interlocutory application for "stay of execution of cost proceedings" (dated 18 June 2019, which I infer is an error given that I published my reasons in September). The application for a stay was rejected for filing as it was misconceived: it was filed before any order for costs had been made by the Court. The applicant subsequently filed an affidavit affirmed on 18 September 2019 and an affidavit affirmed on 18 October 2019 in support of her position that no costs should be awarded against her. 3 For the reasons that follow, I will order that the applicant pay the Agency's costs of this proceeding.