Wright v Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic) [2020] FCA 21

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wright v Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic) [2020] FCA 21 File number(s): VID 1101 of 2018

Judge(s): ANDERSON J

Date of judgment: 20 January 2020

Catchwords: COSTS – interlocutory applications – where applicant makes discovery application – where respondent objects to producing certain documents on basis of relevance and public interest immunity – where respondent makes application for non-disclosure of documents in dispute – where respondent seeks to further amend its defence at hearing of applications – where applications are later dismissed by consent save as to costs – whether respondent should pay costs of applications – whether respondent's conduct in respect of the applications was unreasonable Held: respondent's conduct in respect of the interlocutory applications was not so unreasonable such as to warrant an adverse costs order – respondent to pay applicant's costs thrown away by reason of the further amendment of the defence, but the costs of the applications are costs in the cause

Legislation: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 4, 9(2), 15 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AF, 37AJ(1), 37AG(2), 37N(2), 43(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.13

Cases cited: Consolidated Byrnes Holdings Ltd v Hardel Investments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 399; 176 FCR 348 Gray v Richards (No 2) [2014] HCA 47; 89 ALJR 113; 315 ALR 1 Gribbles Pathology Pty Ltd v Health Insurance Commission (1997) 80 FCR 283 Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 7 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72 Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Cth); Ex Parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; 186 CLR 622 Rhodium Australia Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCAFC 17 Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In liq) (No 2) [2014] HCA 31; 252 CLR 331 Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corp v Walsh [2019] FCAFC 32