DPP v STUDMAN [2006] NSWSC 176

DPP v STUDMAN [2006] NSWSC 176

Mr Studman was unsuccessful on the Notice of Motion, and the matters he advanced did not provide adequate grounds to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event; there was no improper conduct by the Director of Public Prosecutions that could justify depriving it of costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Transfer of Moneys Subject to a Restraining Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act (c'th) / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Notice of Motion
Outcome
Mr Studman was ordered to pay the Director of Public Prosecutions' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion of 8 April 2005.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion' "restraining Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act (c'th)"]
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'proceeds of Crime'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion' "restraining Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act (c'th)"]

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Transfer of Moneys Subject to a Restraining Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act (c'th) / Costs Determination After Dismissal of the Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Studman should pay the Director of Public Prosecutions' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion dismissed on 18 August 2005." "Whether Mr Studman's lack of funds, self-representation, and the possibility that legal advice may have affected his pursuit of the application justified departure from the usual costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Studman was unsuccessful on the Notice of Motion, and the matters he advanced did not provide adequate grounds to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event; there was no improper conduct by the Director of Public Prosecutions that could justify depriving it of costs.

Court Disposition

Mr Studman was ordered to pay the Director of Public Prosecutions' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion of 8 April 2005.

Orders

  • ['Mr Studman pay the costs of the Director of Public Prosecutions of and incidental to the Notice of Motion of 8 April 2005.']