Rindeklev v Comcare [2025] FCA 1399 | Case summary

Ms Gunilla Rindeklev brought proceedings in this Court seeking to review a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Her application was unsuccessful: Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 1023. Orders were made requiring Ms Rindeklev to pay Comcare's costs of and incidental to those proceedings, 'save and except for the costs incurred in relation to the refusal to make any further confidentiality order'. The costs were to be quantified on a lump sum basis by a registrar acting as referee. A copy of the referee's report was provided to the parties. Orders were made for any application 'for any order other than an order that the report be adopted shall be filed and served on or before 22 August 2025'. It was further ordered that if no such application was filed then the question whether the report shall be adopted and the orders consequent upon the determination of the question will be dealt with by the case managing judge on the papers before the registrar.
The authorities as to the procedure to be followed in considering whether to adopt the report of a referee, as applied to a referee report as to costs, were recently considered by Cheeseman J in Masters v Lombe (liquidator), in the matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (in liq) (Referee Report) [2025] FCA 740.
Before the registrar was an affidavit of Ms Amanda Danti which deposed to a summary of costs being a fair and accurate summary of the costs and disbursements that the respondent was entitled to claim pursuant to the order made as to costs (see paras 2 and 4). It follows that, on the evidence before the registrar, the costs claimed did not include the costs incurred in relation to the refusal to make any further confidentiality order.
The referee report sets out the procedure that was followed by the registrar. It records the opinion of the registrar that the quantum of the lump sum costs should be fixed in the amount of $29,722.90. The amount was assessed by the registrar on a broad-brush basis applying an overall discount to fees that, in the opinion of the registrar, 'cannot be shown [to be in respect of] legal work undertaken [that] was excessive or unwarranted or not fairly and reasonably incurred'. The application of a discount on that basis is orthodox.
Ms Rindeklev has not brought any application for any order that the referee report not be adopted or for any variation of the report or for any aspect to be sent back to the referee. There being no contested issue as to law or facts, it is appropriate for the matter of the amount of the costs to be paid to be determined on the papers.
Applying the principles as to adoption of a referee's report, I have reached the following conclusions:

Rindeklev v Comcare [2025] FCA 1399 | Case summary | Zoe

Ms Gunilla Rindeklev brought proceedings in this Court seeking to review a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Her application was unsuccessful: Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 1023. Orders were made requiring Ms Rindeklev to pay Comcare's costs of and incidental to those proceedings, 'save and except for the costs incurred in relation to the refusal to make any further confidentiality order'. The costs were to be quantified on a lump sum basis by a registrar acting as referee. A copy of the referee's report was provided to the parties. Orders were made for any application 'for any order other than an order that the report be adopted shall be filed and served on or before 22 August 2025'. It was further ordered that if no such application was filed then the question whether the report shall be adopted and the orders consequent upon the determination of the question will be dealt with by the case managing judge on the papers before the registrar.
The authorities as to the procedure to be followed in considering whether to adopt the report of a referee, as applied to a referee report as to costs, were recently considered by Cheeseman J in Masters v Lombe (liquidator), in the matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (in liq) (Referee Report) [2025] FCA 740.
Before the registrar was an affidavit of Ms Amanda Danti which deposed to a summary of costs being a fair and accurate summary of the costs and disbursements that the respondent was entitled to claim pursuant to the order made as to costs (see paras 2 and 4). It follows that, on the evidence before the registrar, the costs claimed did not include the costs incurred in relation to the refusal to make any further confidentiality order.
The referee report sets out the procedure that was followed by the registrar. It records the opinion of the registrar that the quantum of the lump sum costs should be fixed in the amount of $29,722.90. The amount was assessed by the registrar on a broad-brush basis applying an overall discount to fees that, in the opinion of the registrar, 'cannot be shown [to be in respect of] legal work undertaken [that] was excessive or unwarranted or not fairly and reasonably incurred'. The application of a discount on that basis is orthodox.
Ms Rindeklev has not brought any application for any order that the referee report not be adopted or for any variation of the report or for any aspect to be sent back to the referee. There being no contested issue as to law or facts, it is appropriate for the matter of the amount of the costs to be paid to be determined on the papers.
Applying the principles as to adoption of a referee's report, I have reached the following conclusions:

Rindeklev v Comcare

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)