Crauford v Thomas [2025] FCA 1536 | Case summary

Federal Court of Australia|2025-12-08|Before: McDonald J

For the reasons explained above, it is appropriate that Mr Thomas pay all of Ms Crauford's costs of the proceedings, on a party-party basis.

I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald.

Human Rights Commission Act 1986

Court of Australia Act 1976

Anchorage Capital Partners Pty Ltd v ACPA Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 112

Connor v Queensland (Department of Education and Training) [2017] FCA 1060

Crauford v Thomas [2025] FCA 1278

Dukemaster Pty Ltd v Bluehive Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 1

Dutton v Bazzi (No 2) [2021] FCA 1560

Hislop v Paltar Petroleum Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 1632

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v Gilead Sciences Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 7

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotext Pty Ltd (2016) 247 FCR 61; [2016] FCAFC 27

Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCA 470

Re Wilcox; Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [1996] FCA 1942; (1996) 72 FCR 151

Umoona Tjutagku Health Service Aboriginal Corporation v Walsh (2019) 268 FCR 401; [2019] FCAFC 32

... While it is acknowledged that, ordinarily, costs follow the event, the wide discretion in awarding costs has led to circumstances where a successful party who has failed on certain issues may be ordered to pay the other party's costs of them (as discussed in Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) [1986] FCA 382; [1986] ATPR 40-748 per Toohey J), although warnings have been stated that care should be taken in such a course and consideration be given to whether the issues on which the successful party failed are clearly dominant or separable (Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd [1994] NSWCA 338; (1994) 254 ALR 328 at 330-331 per Mahoney JA) and to whether the issues involved different factual enquiries in the one proceeding or multiple causes of action, even if based on a common substratum of fact.

Matters which bear upon the appropriateness of a reduction of costs under r 40.08, include the complexity of the claims (AMP Services Ltd v Manning (No 3) [2007] FCA 510 at [3]); whether the matter involves a subject matter suitable for determination by the Federal Court (Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 896 at [12]); whether the law is undeveloped or unclear (Tenji v Henneberry & Associates Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1259 at [10]- [12]); and whether relief of a non-monetary kind has also been awarded (Australasian Performing Right Association Limited v Metro on George Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1371, (2004) 64 IPR 57 at [10]- [12]).

Crauford v Thomas

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (18)