Moloney v New Zealand (No 2) [2006] FCA 603

Moloney v New Zealand (No 2) [2006] FCA 603

Because the applicants successfully resisted the extradition proceedings, the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) precluded consideration of the underlying merits of the proposed criminal proceedings, no time- or costs-wasting conduct by the applicants was suggested, and the Latoudis approach provided persuasive guidance for exercising the broad discretion under s 43, the first respondent should pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings in this Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Determination After Applicants Successfully Resisted Extradition Proceedings
Outcome
The applicants were awarded costs against the first respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs Following Successful Resistance to Extradition' 'discretion to Award Costs Under S 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'relevance of Latoudis V Casey to Criminal and Extradition Related Proceedings' 'disentitling Conduct by Successful Applicants']
['extradition' 'costs' 'federal Court Procedure' 'criminal Procedure'] ['costs Following Successful Resistance to Extradition' 'discretion to Award Costs Under S 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)' 'relevance of Latoudis V Casey to Criminal and Extradition Related Proceedings' 'disentitling Conduct by Successful Applicants']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Extradition Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Determination After Applicants Successfully Resisted Extradition Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful applicants should be awarded their costs of the proceedings in this Court.' "Whether the good faith and reasonableness of New Zealand's extradition attempt should deprive the successful applicants of a costs order." 'Whether principles applicable to costs in summary criminal proceedings should guide the discretion in extradition-related proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants successfully resisted the extradition proceedings, the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) precluded consideration of the underlying merits of the proposed criminal proceedings, no time- or costs-wasting conduct by the applicants was suggested, and the Latoudis approach provided persuasive guidance for exercising the broad discretion under s 43, the first respondent should pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings in this Court.

Court Disposition

The applicants were awarded costs against the first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings in this Court.']