Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39 (31 January 2012)

Last Updated: 1 February 2012

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39

Citation:		Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 3) [2012] FCA 39
Parties:		PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON v CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE
File number:		SAD 131 of 2011
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		31 January 2012
Dates of hearing:	13, 20 January 2012
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P Psaltis
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Norman Waterhouse

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 131 of 2011

BETWEEN:	PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON Applicant
AND:	CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 JANUARY 2012
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.
   

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 131 of 2011

BETWEEN:	PATRINA KELLY HENDERSON Applicant
AND:	CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ADELAIDE Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	31 JANUARY 2012
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has again asked for an adjournment. I refer to her email dated today. She is not present this afternoon. The applicant’s application must be considered in the context of previous requests and the hearings held on 13 January and 20 January 2012. I am not prepared to grant the applicant the “long” adjournment she seeks and I will deal with the matter today. The respondent applies for the costs of the proceeding and including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions. In the ordinary case, that would be the order made. However, the applicant was unrepresented and was seeking to enforce environmental legislation.
2. The respondent quite properly referred the Court to cases where the circumstances in which an unsuccessful applicant might avoid an order for costs if the proceeding has been brought in the public interest were considered. I have considered the cases to which I was referred and the circumstances of this case. I see no reason not to make the usual order as to costs, especially where the applicant’s claim has been dismissed under the summary judgment provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): Henderson v Corporation of the City of Adelaide (No 2) (2012) FCA 9. I order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the applicant’s unsuccessful application for interlocutory injunctions.
   

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated: 31 January 2012