Watkins v Tatana [2023] FCA 248

Federal Court of Australia

Watkins v Tatana [2023] FCA 248 File number(s): VID 599 of 2021

Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN J

Date of judgment: 23 March 2023

Catchwords: COSTS – applicants commenced defamation proceeding against respondent – counsel for respondent engaged on a pro bono basis – applicants took no steps to prosecute their proceeding – applicants sought to have their proceeding dismissed with no order as to costs – whether applicants should pay respondent's costs of the proceeding – whether appropriate to make an order pursuant to r 4.19(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the costs of respondent be paid directly to pro bono counsel

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43(3)(d) Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 80 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 4.01(2), 4.19 Federal Court of Australia, Costs Practice Note (GPN-Costs) Dr Peter Yule, VIC BAR: A History of the Victorian Bar (Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2022)

Cases cited: 1465778 Ontario Inc et al v 1122077 Ontario Ltd et al (2006) 275 DLR (4th) 321 Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v DBR Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 346 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Bitek Pty Ltd v IConnect Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 506 Chancliff Holdings Pty Ltd v Bell [1999] FCA 1783 Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke (No 3) (2017) FCA 693 Ginos Engineers Pty Ltd v Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd (2008) 249 ALR 371; [2008] FCA 1051 Nine Films and Television Pty Ltd v Ninox Television Ltd [2006] FCA 1046 Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 3) [2008] FCA 2018 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1463 Worldwide Enterprises Pty Ltd v Silberman (2010) 26 VR 595