ROWAN, MS D.

In reply to the Hon. M. PARNELL (1 August 2007).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning): The Attorney-General has provided this information:

Ms Rowan issued proceedings against 13 parties, including the state of South Australia, Dr Cornwall and six other individually named defendants. She was ultimately unsuccessful against 11 of those parties, including the state of South Australia, succeeding only against Dr Cornwall and one of the other individually named state defendants.

There were four separate stages to the proceedings: the initial Supreme Court action, an appeal by the defendants and a cross-appeal by Ms Rowan to the Full Supreme Court, an application by Ms Rowan for leave to appeal to the High Court, and a further application by Ms Rowan in the Full Supreme Court arguing that the Full Supreme Court decision should be overturned owing to bias.

Ms Rowan was successful in the first stage to the proceedings only, and then ultimately against only two of the 13 parties.

The bankruptcy proceedings against Ms Rowan were initiated in the Federal Magistrates Court by the commonwealth to recover its costs. The commonwealth's claim for costs amounted to $380,000 and related only to the proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia (at first instance and on appeal).

The commonwealth had the carriage of the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court as petitioning creditor and obtained a sequestration order against Ms Rowan's estate on 28 September 2007.

That Ms Rowan was partly successful against the state for wrongs done to her, yet has recently been bankrupted, is not the direct result of any action on the part of the state. She has been paid substantial damages by the state and the state has reached agreement and substantially met her claim for costs. Ms Rowan's case has been the subject of a fully transparent trial in the courts including on all cost questions.

The real causes of Ms Rowan's predicament are twofold.

First, Ms Rowan sued defendants against whom she was unsuccessful and who therefore became legitimately entitled to recover their costs from her.

Secondly, Ms Rowan then proceeded with unsuccessful applications, namely, to the High Court and seeking to overturn the Supreme Court decision owing to bias, as a consequence of which she became liable for the further costs of all other parties to those applications.