Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR : Qantas Airways Limited seeks orders for the costs reserved in District Court proceedings 6941/2001 and costs of interpleader proceedings taken by Qantas as part of Ms Cameron's proceedings in that court. Those applications arise in circumstances outlined below.

Background 2Ms Cameron was injured in the course of her employment with Qantas. She commenced proceedings in the District Court claiming damages. McLoughlin DCJ heard the matter over a number of hearing days in the period between 5 February 2007 and 1 February 2008. On that day the matter settled upon the basis of a verdict for Ms Cameron for $940,000 inclusive of costs less workers' compensation payments already made. 3Much of what relevantly occurred thereafter is recorded by Latham J in her reasons for judgment published on 25 February 2011: see Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWSC 178. It is presently relevant to record that shortly following the settlement of the proceedings, Ms Cameron sought to resile from the compromise and terminated the services of her then solicitors. Qantas thereafter sought to pay the net settlement monies into court. Ms Cameron then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the consent orders in the District Court. That application was dismissed: see Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited [2008] NSWCA 275. 4On 11 December 2008 Ms Cameron filed a motion in the District Court seeking to set aside the settlement. McLoughlin DCJ, who had presided over the original proceedings, heard that motion. On 14 April 2009 his Honour dismissed the motion and ordered Ms Cameron to pay half of Qantas' costs. Ms Cameron then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which by consent allowed the appeal and set aside his Honour's judgment and orders: see Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2009] NSWCA 339. 5Despite all of this Ms Cameron filed a further motion in the District Court that came before Johnstone DCJ. His Honour dismissed that motion on 28 January 2010 on the basis that it was irregular and that Ms Cameron had foreshadowed an intention to commence proceedings in this Court. His Honour reserved the costs of the motion indicating that he would give Qantas the opportunity to come back to argue the question if so advised once the Supreme Court proceedings had been dealt with. 6Ms Cameron then commenced these proceedings in this Court on 13 May 2010 seeking again to set aside the settlement. Her Honour Schmidt J granted Ms Cameron leave on 13 August 2010 further to amend her statement of claim and ordered her to pay Qantas' costs: see Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2010] NSWSC 899. Ms Cameron had also filed a summons in this Court on 16 August 2010 seeking an order that the District Court proceedings be transferred to this Court. The Registrar made that order on 24 September 2010. 7Subsequently on 21 February 2011, her Honour Latham J heard an application by Qantas to strike out the statement of claim. Her Honour did so on 25 February 2011: see [2011] NSWSC 178. Leave to appeal from her Honour's decision was refused with costs by the Court of Appeal on 26 August 2011. Ms Cameron later filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court on 23 September 2011. 8Finally, on 23 September 2011, I published my reasons for judgment in Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited [2011] NSWSC 1138 in which I said this at [6]-[8]: "[6] The most distressing aspect of this long and protracted litigation is that it has dissipated a substantial fund to which Ms Cameron became entitled following the settlement of her claim, ultimately, it would seem, for no good purpose and for no legitimate reason. Ms Cameron's dissatisfaction with the District Court settlement has returned a result to her that is, on one fairly available view, wholly disproportionate to any concerns that she could possibly have had about its perceived inadequacy in the first place or the fulfilment of professional duties owed to her by legal representatives whom she then retained in the second place. Whatever complaint she may have had, or perceived that she was able to agitate, with respect to the outcome of her District Court litigation, has continued to obsess her. The end result of this is that a not inconsiderable fund that became available for Ms Cameron's own use and benefit from the settlement has now been largely swallowed up by adverse costs orders and similar avoidable outcomes. Notwithstanding all of this, Ms Cameron persists to tilt at understandably dispassionate and disinterested windmills that cannot be expected to deliver the resolution that she craves. [7] The orders that Ms Cameron still seeks are clearly in respect of matters that were long ago subsumed in the original settlement. As unpalatable as it may be for Ms Cameron to accept, the case is over. It has been for some time. Ms Cameron must in my view sooner rather than later come to terms with this reality lest the balance of any monies that she can yet enjoy also disappears on whimsical projects with no real or meaningful prospect of a return. Ms Cameron unfortunately labours without the benefit of legal advice and shows no sign in those circumstances of coming to any realistic appreciation of the self-destructive course of her unremitting endeavours. [8] I can see no basis for the making of any orders in her favour. Her notice of motion is hopeless and must be dismissed. It may be that her opponents will form the view that the costs of her ill-advised application are no longer worth pursuing. I will however obviously hear the parties on the costs of this application if called upon to do so."