Liddle, Theresa v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited and Ors [1994] FCA 1058

This guillotine order, of course, is one of last resort, and is only made against a background where, in its absence, injustice would be caused to the other parties to the litigation. It was a considered order having regard to the interests of all the parties in the litigation and the

detailed history of the litigation as it stood at that time.

For reasons which are perhaps understandable but nonetheless which are of no comfort to the respondents, Ms Liddle was unable to file the amended application and affidavits that the court had directed within the time the court ordered, and, as a consequence, those proceedings stand

Today an application is made by the first respondents for their costs of those proceedings. The order for costs is resisted by Ms Liddle, and she has referred to a number of matters. Her submissions, I have to say, are

somewhat diffuse, and they touch on a proceeding which is available to her and is being prosecuted with legal assistance in the Supreme Court. Those considerations, however, do not affect, 1t seems to me, the correctness of the order that I am

In accordance with the ordinary rule, I propose to order that the respondents, Peter Morley and Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited, have their costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs; those costs to be taxed if not agreed. Those costs include any costs reserved in respect of any notice of motion. The ordinary rule as to costs should apply, in my view, in the present case, and nothing has been put before me to indicate that the ordinary rule as to costs should not apply in this case. I note specifically, however, that there is no application for costs

by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

The final matter concerns a fear that Ms Liddle has expressed concerning the Federal Court records and possible consequences to her should they be interfered with. As the material contained in the correspondence file in this proceeding indicates, there have been a number of matters raised by Ms Liddle concerning tampering with records and transcripts and her complaints have been the subject of

transcript of an appearance before me I caused to be

investigated, and, as I indicated in the transcripts of subsequent proceedings, my then associate compared the actual transcript with the tape recorded conversation and the effect 1s that the transcript was one of integrity, there being some matters omitted, being of the "um" and "ah" variety; some matters of comment in the nature of omissions of comments by me, like, "all right," or "I am sorry," when I have corrected myself; the avoidance of repetition in respect of the words, "There is a question - there is a question about the accuracy

The complaint of Ms Liddle caused me concern at the time and required investigation, the result being that the transcript was a substantially complete record of the

However, because of the fears that Ms Liddle has expressed today, I want to assure her that absolutely no document or record of any kind relating to these proceedings will be destroyed. I cannot speak in respect of the tape recordings which are within the custody of the shorthand reporting service, but so far as the Federal Court's records are concerned nothing will be tampered with, interfered with

I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages fare a true copy of the

reasons for judgment herein 9f the Honourable Justi e/ Spender. | | Associate ]

respondents: Ms A. M. Dougherty of O'Mara, Patterson & Perrier

Solicitors for the second respondent: Mr J. Brooks of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission