Rindeklev v Comcare

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, save and except for the costs incurred in relation to the refusal to make any further confidentiality order.
2. The costs pursuant to order 1 be quantified on a lump sum basis by a registrar acting as a referee after receiving written submission of no more than three pages and any affidavit from each of the parties in accordance with a timetable to be set by the registrar.
3. Subject to further order, the question whether the registrar's report as referee should be adopted will be considered by the case managing judge on the papers that were before the registrar acting as referee. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

COLVIN J: 1 Ms Rindeklev sought review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of two decisions by delegates of Comcare each to the effect that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation to Ms Rindelev under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for alleged workplace mental health injury. Ms Rindeklev withdrew the applications. She later applied to reinstate them, and the Tribunal refused her application. Ms Rindeklev brought an appeal in this Court relying upon s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Comcare objected to the competency of those proceedings and, in the alternative, opposed them substantively. 2 Ms Rindeklev's appeal was dismissed: Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 1023. An issue arose in the course of the appeal as to whether there should be continuing confidentiality orders. Comcare supported the making of an order in circumstances where Ms Rindeklev's position as to the making of those orders was that she first had no objection to them but then indicated that she objected to those orders. Confidentiality orders were not made: at [145]-[153]. 3 Provision was made for written submissions as to costs and for the question of costs to be determined on the papers. 4 Comcare seeks an order that Ms Rindeklev pay Comcare's costs of the appeal in this Court, except for its costs incurred in relation to the Court's refusal to make on order for confidentiality. Ms Rindeklev has not filed submissions as to costs and the time for filing them passed some time ago. 5 I dealt with the relevant principles in Rindeklev v Comcare (No 2) [2024] FCA 930. 6 Save for the issue of confidentiality, Comcare has succeeded. There being no special circumstances that would warrant departure from the general approach that costs follow the event, I am satisfied that the order proposed by Comcare is appropriate. 7 Comcare seeks an order for the costs to be determined on a lump sum basis. For the same reasons that I gave in Rindeklev v Comcare (No 2) I am satisfied that the costs should be determined on a lump sum basis. 8 For the reasons given, there will be orders as I have indicated. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.