ESHO v PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY OF NSW & ANOR [2006] NSWSC 345

ESHO v PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY OF NSW & ANOR [2006] NSWSC 345

Because consent orders had joined the Attorney General as the second defendant, there was no impediment to treating the Attorney General as a party and ordering costs in the ordinary way. The claimant was wholly successful and no discretionary reason was raised against a costs order, so costs should follow the event against the second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Substantive Proceedings Prerogative Relief Costs / Costs After Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief Quashing the Determination of the New South Wales Parole Authority
Outcome
Second defendant ordered to pay the claimant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['prerogative Relief' 'administrative Review' 'costs Against Parties' 'costs Against Administrative Tribunals']
['administrative Law' 'costs'] ['prerogative Relief' 'administrative Review' 'costs Against Parties' 'costs Against Administrative Tribunals']

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

Administrative Law Substantive Proceedings Prerogative Relief Costs / Costs After Orders in the Nature of Prerogative Relief Quashing the Determination of the New South Wales Parole Authority

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was power to order costs against the Attorney General in circumstances where it was initially thought the Attorney General was not a party to the proceedings.' 'Whether costs should be ordered against the second defendant after the claimant was wholly successful.' 'Whether it would be inappropriate to order costs against an administrative tribunal that submitted to any order of the Court save as to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because consent orders had joined the Attorney General as the second defendant, there was no impediment to treating the Attorney General as a party and ordering costs in the ordinary way. The claimant was wholly successful and no discretionary reason was raised against a costs order, so costs should follow the event against the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Second defendant ordered to pay the claimant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ["The second defendant pay the claimant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed."]