Burston v Hanson (No 2) [2023] FCA 113

Federal Court of Australia

Burston v Hanson (No 2) [2023] FCA 113 File number: NSD 652 of 2020

Judgment of: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 22 February 2023

Catchwords: COSTS – where question of costs arises from a dispute following verdict and judgment in favour of the applicant on one out of three publications sued upon – where respondent seeks no orders as to costs asserting equal level of success and that the applicant engaged in disentitling conduct in the proceeding – Held: no sufficient basis for departing from the ordinary rule; respondent to pay the applicant his costs on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed, including by way of a lump sum assessment.

Cases cited: Burston v Hanson [2022] FCA 1235 Mawhinney v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2022] FCAFC 205 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 73

Division: General Division

Registry: New South Wales

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 15 February 2023

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr N Olson

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mark O'Brien Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Chrysanthou SC and Mr T Smartt

Solicitor for the Respondent: Danny Eid Lawyers

ORDERS NSD 652 of 2020

BETWEEN: BRIAN BURSTON Applicant

AND: PAULINE LEE HANSON Respondent

order made by: BROMWICH J DATE OF ORDER: 22 February 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent pay to the applicant: (a) the filing fee paid to the Supreme Court of Queensland; (b) the costs and disbursements incurred from 17 March 2022 up to and including the costs of and incidental to the costs determination on a party/party basis. 2. If not agreed, costs to be assessed by a registrar, including, at the registrar's discretion, by way of a lump sum assessment. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.