Doyle v Commissioner of Police (No 5) [2020] NSWCA 345

Doyle v Commissioner of Police (No 5) [2020] NSWCA 345

Because the parties and issues changed during the proceedings, a single global costs order was inappropriate. The proceedings should be divided into discrete stages by reference to the parties joined or benefitted and the issues raised. Before 14 February 2020 in the Court of Appeal, Mr Doyle and Mr Barbeliuk had substantial success on the validity of the warrant but did not obtain the consequential relief sought, justifying an order that the Commissioner pay 80% of their costs. After that date the litigation concerned item 24 for Mr Barbeliuk's benefit alone and he was wholly unsuccessful, so he should pay the Commissioner's later costs. At first instance, before 2 April 2019 Mr...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs / Court of Appeal Determination on the Papers of Costs at First Instance and in the Court of Appeal Following Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Costs orders made apportioning costs by litigation stage; no order as to the costs of the present costs application or privilege-related costs.
Legal Topics
['partial Success on Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'broad Brush Proportionate Costs Orders' 'division of Costs by Litigation Periods' 're Exercise of Discretion as to Costs at Trial']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['partial Success on Appeal' 'costs Following the Event' 'broad Brush Proportionate Costs Orders' 'division of Costs by Litigation Periods' 're Exercise of Discretion as to Costs at Trial']

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 / Court of Appeal Determination on the Papers of Costs at First Instance and in the Court of Appeal Following Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a global costs order or orders relating to particular stages and aspects of the litigation should be made where the appellants had partial success.' 'How costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings should be allocated before and after the principal judgment on 14 February 2020.' 'How costs in the Common Law Division should be allocated before and after Mr Barbeliuk was joined on 2 April 2019.' 'Whether costs attributable to claims for privilege over seized documents and the present costs application should be excluded from costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties and issues changed during the proceedings, a single global costs order was inappropriate. The proceedings should be divided into discrete stages by reference to the parties joined or benefitted and the issues raised. Before 14 February 2020 in the Court of Appeal, Mr Doyle and Mr Barbeliuk had substantial success on the validity of the warrant but did not obtain the consequential relief sought, justifying an order that the Commissioner pay 80% of their costs. After that date the litigation concerned item 24 for Mr Barbeliuk's benefit alone and he was wholly unsuccessful, so he should pay the Commissioner's later costs. At first instance, before 2 April 2019 Mr...

Court Disposition

Costs orders made apportioning costs by litigation stage; no order as to the costs of the present costs application or privilege-related costs.

Orders

  • ["Order that the Commissioner pay 80% of Mr Doyle's and Mr Barbeliuk's costs in the Court of Appeal, incurred on or before 14 February 2020." "Order that Mr Barbeliuk pay the Commissioner's costs incurred after 14 February 2020, exclusive of the costs of the present application for costs." "Order that Mr Doyle pay...