Lawrance v Commonwealth

In a sense, it would be giving to a person who has been on the receiving end so to speak of a determination by the courts a free hit at great cost to the other party in the appeal proceedings. That consideration, it seems to me, is also reinforced by the judgment of Gummow J in Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions and Anor [1988] FCA 568, unreported 5 September 1988. That case involved appeals against extradition with penal consequences. Such consequences were clearly very relevant considerations, but discretionary reasons moved the Court not to order. Such discretionary considerations, which were particularly noted by Gummow J, included the delay between the filing of the papers and the bringing of the applications for security. His Honour referred to a particular circumstance which is relevant here, and that is that the applicant for security has a judgment in its favour. There was a reference by Gummow J to Bethune v Porteous (1892) 18 VLR 493, again an old case. In that case, Hood J said (at 494): "the reason underlying the numerous and varying cases in which appellants have been ordered to give security will be found in the injustice to a successful litigant that may be caused if he be compelled to contest the matter for a second time without a probability of obtaining his costs if ultimately successful." That really is the fundamental question of justice behind my decision to order security for costs. See also: Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 37 FCR 288 at 290-1; Upton v Tasmanian Perpetual Trustees Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1336 at [15]. 48 Separate consideration has been given to the question as to whether Ms Lawrance's impecuniosity has been occasioned by the conduct complained of. Notwithstanding a contrary submission of Ms Lawrance, it is not considered that the conduct the subject of complaint to the Commission could in any way be said to have occasioned her present financial position. It has been concluded that there is no serious question to be resolved on appeal as to the manner in which the Federal Magistrate has resolved the subject matter of the complaint to the Commission. And it necessarily follows from that conclusion that any such conduct has not occasioned any impecuniosity to Ms Lawrance. Any impecuniosity has pre-dated the conduct complained of.

The Quantum of the Security to be Provided and the Time within which it is to be Provided 49 The quantification of any order for security is "certainly not an exact science": East Grace Corp v Xing [2005] FCA 219 at [6] per French J. 50 Relevant to any quantification is the anticipated duration of an appeal, the complexity of the issues to be addressed and the extent to which the preparation of written submissions would facilitate the expeditious resolution of the appeal. The fact is that the Notice of Appeal as filed in this Court sets forth some 27 "grounds of appeal". A review of those grounds only supports a conclusion that the appeal would most probably take two days, if not more. It is, perhaps, inevitable that an unrepresented appellant may take longer to develop arguments and submissions than a party represented by experienced counsel. The hearing of the present Motions seeking security was heard over a two-day period. 51 The more wide-ranging the challenge to a decision on appeal, however, the greater may be the reluctance to deny to those parties who have already vindicated their position at first instance the protection of an order for security. The more confined the grounds which an appellant may wish to pursue, the less persuasive may be the consideration that an appellant is "dragging his opponent from one Court to another" and seeking to re-agitate some, if not all, of the grievances resolved at first instance. 52 The State of New South Wales estimates that costs which will be incurred by the State will be in excess of $12,000 and accordingly seeks security in that amount. It also estimates that it has already incurred costs exceeding $110,000 in responding to various other proceedings commenced by Ms Lawrance. The remaining Respondents have estimated the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in defending the present proceedings is in excess of $75,000 and estimates that its costs in conducting the present appeal will be in excess of $10,000 and likely to amount to approximately $20,000. Those Respondents seek security in the sum of $10,000. 53 There is no reason to question the estimate of costs to be incurred. Indeed, if anything, it is considered that any appeal will take more than two days such that the estimates of costs to be incurred may be conservative. 54 Even though different considerations apply when security is sought in respect to an appeal, it remains a matter of concern that the quantum of any such security should be such as to attempt to accommodate the competing interests of both the Appellant and the Respondents. An accommodation of these competing interests is, it is considered, properly effected if the Commonwealth Respondents (namely the First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents) have their security fixed at $10,000 and the Second Respondent, the State of New South Wales, has its security fixed at $12,000. 55 In ordering that that security be provided and in determining the quantum of security, it is recognised that there is a very real possibility that such orders may preclude the appeal from proceeding. Indeed, Ms Lawrance was asked to indicate a period of time within which she could provide security, should that be the conclusion of the Court. Her response was understood to be that she would have difficulty meeting any order within any period of time. 56 In an attempt to meet Ms Lawrance's financial position, and balancing the interests of the Respondents, it is considered that she should provide 50% of the security ordered within 21 days, with the remaining 50% to be provided 21 days prior to the hearing of her appeal. In splitting the quantum of security in that manner, it may alleviate the real difficulties which she will encounter. 57 It is further considered appropriate to stay the proceedings in the event that the security is not provided. Separate stay orders should be made in an attempt to further alleviate the difficulties confronting Ms Lawrance. By doing so, she is thereby given the flexibility, should she so wish, of proceeding only against the Commonwealth Respondents.

Orders 58 The orders of the Court are:

1. The Appellant's Application seeking a stay of the order for costs as made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 30 November 2007 be dismissed.
2. The Appellant to provide to the First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents security for costs in the sum of $10,000, to be provided as follows: (i) 50% of which, namely $5,000, within 21 days; and (ii) the remaining 50%, namely a further $5,000, 21 days prior to the hearing of the appeal.
3. The proceedings as against the First and Third to Thirteenth Respondents be stayed in the event that such security as has been ordered is not provided within the time specified.
4. The Appellant to provide to the Second Respondent security for costs in the sum of $12,000, to be provided as follows: (i) 50% of which, namely $6,000, within 21 days; and (ii) the remaining 50%, namely a further $6,000, 21 days prior to the hearing of the appeal.
5. The proceedings as against the Second Respondent be stayed in the event that such security as has been ordered is not provided within the time specified.
6. The Appellant to pay the costs of the Respondents of and incidental to the hearing of their Notices of Motion and such costs as have been incurred in respect to the hearing of the Appellant's Application for a stay of the orders of the Federal Magistrate.
7. Liberty to any party to apply on 2 days' notice in writing. I certify that the preceding fifty-eight (58) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Flick.

Associate: Dated: 4 April 2008

The Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Counsel for the First and Third D Watson to Thirteenth Respondents:

Counsel for the Second Respondent: P Moorehouse

Date of Hearing: 18 March 2008

Date of Judgment: 4 April 2008

Fourthly, I have rejected very extensive material which amounts to no more than submissions repeating the general contentions of fact and law made in the applicant's points of claim documents, her particulars and her written submissions. These parts of the applicant's affidavits serve no useful function in assisting the Court or respondents to understand the applicant's case, and are embarrassing to the proceeding. I have therefore rejected those parts. …

Furthermore the alleged conduct of these other persons prior to 2005, as narrated by the applicant in her affidavits, does not in my opinion carry any probative assistance towards establishing, directly or indirectly, the particular conduct complained about in this proceeding, nor its relevant character under the anti-discrimination legislation invoked by the applicant, nor its relevant effects on the applicant. In my opinion, it is inadmissible under the relevancy test in s 55. 35 The other fundamental error identified by Ms Lawrance is said to be the manner in which the Federal Magistrate identified the "comparator" for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). This alleged error, it is said, emerges from the following observations of the Federal Magistrate:

… The prejudice the respondents face in being forced to address all of that history is clear, and, in my opinion it should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act… One Ground of Appeal seeks to contend that "nowhere is such prejudice identified, and its existence is unclear or not clear". It is said that the Federal Magistrate has denied the now Appellant procedural fairness. 40 Grounds of Appeal asserting a denial of procedural fairness, it is considered, have little if any prospects of success. The Federal Magistrate has made rulings on the ambit of the complaint and that ruling was part of his Honour's approach to the evidence to be adduced. Extending the evidence beyond the period of time encompassed by the complaint would clearly expose the Federal Magistrates Court and the Respondents to further time being expended in the pursuit of that which was held to be irrelevant. The "prejudice" in doing so is readily apparent. In this Court, Counsel for the Second Respondent informed the Court without objection that subpoenas were issued to all of the individual Respondents to attend to give evidence. And they did so.

Impecuniosity 41 In addition to submitting that her Notice of Appeal had such prospects of success as to not warrant an exercise of the discretion to order security, a further principal consideration relied upon by Ms Lawrance was her impecuniosity. 42 All Respondents, for the purposes of the present Motion, conceded that Ms Lawrance was suffering financial hardship and would not be able to provide security. 43 All Respondents nevertheless sought security. 44 It may readily be accepted that poverty is no bar to litigation: James v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (1985) 9 FCR 442 at 445. And where a natural person has been ordered to provide security, there is usually present some factor in addition to impecuniosity, such as lack of prospects of success: Knight v Beyond Properties Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 764 at [32]-[33]. 45 By reason of her impecuniosity, there is considered to be a real risk that any costs order which may ultimately be made against Ms Lawrance may not be paid. Such has been the fate of the Respondents to date in other proceedings. In exercising the discretion to order that security be provided, it is relevant to take into account any outstanding costs orders which remain unsatisfied: Freeman v National Australia Bank Ltd [2004] FCA 601 at [14]. Ms Lawrance has not paid the costs ordered to be paid by the Federal Magistrate, including not only the orders as to costs in favour of the present Respondents, but also orders as to costs made by the Federal Magistrate against Ms Lawrance in favour of persons not parties to the proceedings before that Court. Those costs orders included, for example, an order that Ms Lawrance pay the costs incurred by the Chief Executive Officer of Phillips Fox in relation to the unsuccessful application for their joinder as parties to the Federal Magistrates Court proceedings. A like order for costs was made against Ms Lawrance in favour of Dr Margaret Pickles in relation to an unsuccessful application for joinder. 46 Any order for security, even in a quantum less than that which is sought, it is recognised, has a real likelihood of stifling the appeal now before this Court: Cameron's Unit Services Pty Ltd v Kevin R Whelpton & Associates Pty Ltd (1986) 13 FCR 46 at 52-3. 47 Ms Lawrance, however, has already had the opportunity to have her claims litigated and has lost. Although she is entitled to prosecute her appeal in this Court, different considerations apply when security for costs is ordered in respect to an appeal: Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322. Spender J there outlined the principles to be applied as follows:

It will be seen that one basis for refusing leave to amend the application (or to join the Guardianship Tribunal) was that such matters are beyond the jurisdiction of the FMCA by reason of s 46PO of the HREOC Act. Another was that there was no material to suggest the existence of orders or instruments of the kind which Ms Lawrance sought to have revoked. Nothing has been advanced in support of the application for leave to appeal which satisfactorily addresses the foundation for these rulings or calls their correctness into question. At the hearing before me Ms Lawrance confirmed that the Guardianship Tribunal was not referred to anywhere in the material she put before HREOC in connection with her terminated complaint and she did not know of the existence of any orders by the Guardianship Tribunal relating to her or whether the Guardianship Tribunal had given any consideration at any time to her circumstances. Her desire to seek any relief against the Guardianship Tribunal, or in relation to its orders, must be seen as speculative and clearly outside the scope of her terminated complaint. There is no prospect an appeal in relation to this issue could succeed. …

The Federal Magistrate also excluded details of the conduct of numerous persons other than the personal respondents relating to matters which he had earlier ruled, on 17 November 2006 (Lawrance v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2006] FMCA 1792), were outside the scope of the matters before him and outside the scope of the FMCA's jurisdiction as granted by s 46PO of the HREOC Act. He stated that '[t]he applicant's evidence of these matters is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible insofar as she continues to pursue complaints which I had found not to be within jurisdiction'. He indicated that he would have excluded the evidence upon discretionary grounds in any event.

No matter of any substance has been advanced in support of the application for leave to appeal so far as those rulings are concerned. That circumstance alone dictates rejection of the application so far as it concerns rulings on evidence. There are other obstacles also. No submission has been advanced by the Respondents that the further pursuit of those issues which have been previously considered by Buchanan J amounts to an abuse of process. But it is considered that no reason has now been advanced by Ms Lawrance to reach any different conclusion to that reached by Buchanan J. The one reason advanced by Ms Lawrance as to why weight should not be given to the conclusions of Buchanan J was the contention that before his Honour the question as to whether there had been an error in the identification of the ambit of the complaint was not put in issue. This was one of the "fundamental questions of law" which it is contended was resolved erroneously by the Federal Magistrate. 29 Insofar as Ms Lawrance contends that her Grounds of Appeal raise fundamental questions of law, she contends that the Federal Magistrate erred in both: (i) the manner in which his Honour resolved the subject of the complaint made to the Commission, that error being as to the persons the subject of complaint and the period of time during which the conduct complained of occurred; and (ii) "describing the comparator for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 as 'any unimpaired litigant'". The former error, she contended, underlay the Federal Magistrate's rulings (inter alia) as to discovery and admissibility of evidence. 30 Such Grounds of Appeal as seek to raise these contentions, it is considered, do not have any real prospects of success. 31 The relevance of identifying the subject matter of the complaint as made to the Commission arises by reason of the fact that s 46PO(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) confers an entitlement to make an application to this Court and the fact that s 46PO(3) confines any such application to the same conduct as was the subject of complaint. Those subsections provide as follows: Application to court if complaint is terminated (1) If: (a) a complaint has been terminated by the President under section 46PE or 46PH; and (b) the President has given a notice to any person under subsection 46PH(2) in relation to the termination; any person who was an affected person in relation to the complaint may make an application to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court, alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents to the terminated complaint. … (3) The unlawful discrimination alleged in the application: (a) must be the same as (or the same in substance as) the unlawful discrimination that was the subject of the terminated complaint; or (b) must arise out of the same (or substantially the same) acts, omissions or practices that were the subject of the terminated complaint. 32 The Federal Magistrate in the present appeal relevantly concluded:

Ms Lawrance has not established that any person unlawfully discriminated against her under s 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act on the ground of a disability, or an imputed disability, in the provision of goods, services or facilities at the Federal Court. This is because at no time did any person treat her or propose to treat her less favourably than a person without a disability, or imputed disability, would have been treated in circumstances that were the same or not materially different, within s.5. 38 Any Ground of Appeal starting from the premise that the Federal Magistrate erred in the manner suggested, it is considered, has little prospects of success. 39 The Grounds of Appeal also seek to put in issue the procedural fairness extended by the Federal Magistrate to Ms Lawrance. The grounds are variously expressed and range from contentions that procedural fairness was denied by reason of the failure to consider evidence or submissions to the manner in which his Honour expressed his reasons for interlocutory applications. The Magistrate in one interlocutory decision (Lawrance v Commonwealth (No 4) [2007] FMCA 1408) thus excluded evidence of events prior to 2005 and stated in part as follows: