Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Kane [2020] FCA 443

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Kane [2020] FCA 443

The ABC failed to demonstrate that the AFP parties acted unreasonably so as to warrant costs on the normal basis or engaged in conduct sufficiently grave to warrant indemnity costs. Given the absence of any filed notice of appeal or identified appeal grounds, the AFP parties' legitimate consideration of disclosure obligations and trial timing, their steps to facilitate the 24 February 2020 hearing, and their extension of the undertaking once an expedited appeal timetable was available, the proper order was no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Respect of an Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding / Judgment on Costs After the Urgent Application Did Not Proceed Substantively and No Notice of Appeal Was Filed
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'no Order as to Costs' 'urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'search Warrant Under S 3 E(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (cth)']
['costs' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['indemnity Costs' 'no Order as to Costs' 'urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding' 'model Litigant Obligations' 'search Warrant Under S 3 E(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (cth)']

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

Costs Determination in Respect of an Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding / Judgment on Costs After the Urgent Application Did Not Proceed Substantively and No Notice of Appeal Was Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ABC should receive indemnity costs in respect of its Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding filed on 20 February 2020.' 'Whether the AFP parties acted unreasonably or engaged in conduct sufficiently grave to warrant an indemnity costs order.' 'Whether there should be any order as to costs where it proved unnecessary to determine the merits of the urgent application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ABC failed to demonstrate that the AFP parties acted unreasonably so as to warrant costs on the normal basis or engaged in conduct sufficiently grave to warrant indemnity costs. Given the absence of any filed notice of appeal or identified appeal grounds, the AFP parties' legitimate consideration of disclosure obligations and trial timing, their steps to facilitate the 24 February 2020 hearing, and their extension of the undertaking once an expedited appeal timetable was available, the proper order was no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There be no order as to costs in respect of the Urgent Application Before Start of a Proceeding filed on 20 February 2020.']