Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology (No 3)
[2013] QSC 210
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology (No 3)[2013] QSC 210
- Add to List
Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology (No 3)[2013] QSC 210
Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology (No 3)[2013] QSC 210
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Trial |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 August 2013 |
DELIVERED AT: | Supreme Court Rockhampton |
HEARING DATE: | On the Papers – last submissions received 16 August 2013 |
JUDGE: | McMeekin J |
ORDER: | 1.Direct that the plaintiff make any further submission that he might be advised on the question of the appropriate order as to costs on or before 4 pm on 23 August 2013. |
CATCHWORDS: | CONTRACT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – COSTS – whether the plaintiff be permitted an extension of time to make submissions as to costs Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2013] QSC 158 Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology (No 2) [2013] QSC 177 |
COUNSEL: | The plaintiff is self-represented D Kelly SC and D de Jersey for the Defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Minter Ellison Lawyers for the Defendant |
[1] McMeekin J: These proceedings involve the determination of separate questions concerning the terms of an employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. On 19 June 2013 I delivered my reasons,[1] following a two day hearing in March, in which I answered the two questions asked. The defendant was successful in its arguments. I directed that the parties make any such submission as they might be advised as to any further order that ought to be made.
[2] Submissions were made and on 16 July 2013 I ordered:[2]
(a) That the proceedings be dismissed;
(b) Direct that the defendant make any further submission as to the basis on which costs should be assessed on or before 4pm on 26 July 2013;
(c) Direct that the plaintiff make any further submission that he might be advised in response on or before 4 pm on 2 August 2013.
[3] The defendant complied with the timetable. On 31 July the plaintiff sought an extension of time to 21 August in which to make submissions on costs. A more limited extension was granted to 14 August. The plaintiff again seeks an extension. He submits that I abandon the timetable entirely, delay my decision until after an appeal is heard from my original decision or, as a last fall back, permit an extension to 10 September, a week after his outline of argument is required to be filed in the Court of Appeal.
[4] I have already determined that I will make an order as to costs. I do not propose to revisit that decision. An order is necessary before any appeal is heard as the parties may wish to ask the Court of Appeal to overturn that order irrespective of their success on the merits.
[5] The grounds advanced for further delay relate principally to the plaintiff’s wish to properly prepare his outline for the Court of Appeal. That concern I thought justified the first extension. The plaintiff also informs me that he has not been well.
[6] The plaintiff has now explained what it is that he proposes to argue and the issues that he says that he needs to explore. Before turning to those issues I note that the plaintiff is intending to travel overseas to attend a conference between 26 August 2013 and 31 August 2013 and present a paper. He says that he needs a week to prepare for that. While I appreciate the plaintiff’s candour his private arrangements are of little moment.
[7] The level of detail and information required to make a submission on costs is very much more limited than the plaintiff seems to suppose. He has had the defendant’s submissions since 26 July. Three weeks is ample time, even if concentrating on his appeal papers, for the plaintiff to prepare a succinct statement of what costs order he contends ought to be made and why. If any affidavit is required it should be relatively short.
[8] The insight that I have into the plaintiff’s thinking comes from his email to my associate seeking a further extension. He there explains that his “significant submissions … will have to include (amongst other things) my supporting affidavit and the detailed analysis of the following major points:
(a) The analysis of the significant public interest of the proceeding S6286/2010 which justifies an order that I should be exempt from paying Defendant's legal costs for this proceeding, or at least that my liability to pay Defendant's costs in the event that I am unsuccessful in the proceeding should be capped at $5,000 (Bare v Small [2013] VSCA 204);
(b) The significant unfairness of any potential order that I should pay Defendant's costs in the circumstances where the decision dismissing the proceeding S6286/2010 was made on the basis of a separate trial and without any consideration of the substance of the matter, which leaves significant possibility that the actual victim of the abuse (me) would be ordered to pay costs of the guilty party (the Defendant) willfully committing the abuse over a number of years. In my view, this would be a major injustice.
(c) The fact that the Defendant repeatedly but groundlessly and shamelessly alleged that I extorted money from the Defendant - the allegation that has made it completely impossible for me to discuss, negotiate or accept any monetary settlement with the Defendant (including the Defendant's offer of 18 November 2011).
(d) The analysis of the major prejudice and impediment which an order to me to pay Defendant's costs would present for my ability to conduct my appeals and seek justice before the law (including due to my limited ability to conduct the proceedings because of my serious health condition).”
[9] While the plaintiff is at liberty to make what argument he wishes I observe that the argument in (b) assumes a basis of fact not found in the judgement; that in (c) seems irrelevant, at least to a degree, but if there is some explanation for a failure to accept an offer then it can be shortly explained; and that in (d) can easily be made more or less in the terms already adopted. As to (a) the public interest can be simply identified and its relevance to this case explained, I would have thought, in brief terms. The points exposed suggest that there is little reason for any continued delay.
[10] The plaintiff has until 23 August 2013 to make such submission as he desires on the question of the appropriate order as to costs. I will determine the matter on the basis of the submissions then received.