Inglis, Kathleen Isobel v. Moore, Andrew Leslie & Ors [1979] FCA 64

Inglis, Kathleen Isobel v. Moore, Andrew Leslie & Ors [1979] FCA 64

Section 55E of the Judiciary Act 1903 is a valid statutory provision authorising the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor to act for Commonwealth officers or employees where the Commonwealth has a legitimate interest, and the recovery of costs by such a solicitor is not dependent on a personal liability for costs by the party represented. Even if the solicitor is a salaried Crown employee, costs can be recovered from the unsuccessful litigant if the statutory interest exists and proper administrative discretion is exercised.

Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Kathleen Isobel Inglis; Respondent (defendant): Andrew Leslie Moore; Respondent (defendant): Michael Rayner Thwaites; Respondent (defendant): Maurice Bray; Respondent (defendant): Betty O'Brien; Respondent (defendant): Sylvia Rowlands
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 1979
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Validity of Statutory Provision Conferring Discretion in Crown Solicitor, Entitlement of Crown Solicitor to Act for Commonwealth Employees, Recovery of Costs by Crown Solicitor, Limits of Commonwealth Interests
Constitutional Law Costs Validity of Statutory Provision Conferring Discretion in Crown Solicitor Entitlement of Crown Solicitor to Act for Commonwealth Employees Recovery of Costs by Crown Solicitor Limits of Commonwealth Interests

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Isobel Inglis

Appellant (plaintiff)

Andrew Leslie Moore

Respondent (defendant)

Michael Rayner Thwaites

Respondent (defendant)

Maurice Bray

Respondent (defendant)

Betty O'Brien

Respondent (defendant)

Sylvia Rowlands

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs are recoverable against an unsuccessful plaintiff when Commonwealth employees are sued personally and represented by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Solicitor may act as solicitor for Commonwealth employees sued in respect of acts done in the scope of their employment
  3. 3 Constitutional validity of s.55E of the Judiciary Act 1903

Ratio Decidendi

Section 55E of the Judiciary Act 1903 is a valid statutory provision authorising the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor to act for Commonwealth officers or employees where the Commonwealth has a legitimate interest, and the recovery of costs by such a solicitor is not dependent on a personal liability for costs by the party represented. Even if the solicitor is a salaried Crown employee, costs can be recovered from the unsuccessful litigant if the statutory interest exists and proper administrative discretion is exercised.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay to the respondents their costs of the appeal to be taxed.