Kalache v Local Court of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1736

Kalache v Local Court of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1736

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J because the plaintiff's late commencement of the prohibition proceedings and failure to give reasonable notice of the stay application created urgency and deprived the defendants, the Court and the Attorney General of a proper opportunity to consider who should act as contradictor. In those circumstances, the police informant was justified in taking an active role in opposing the stay to protect the timely prosecution of the criminal charges, although the costs of the abandoned application to be released from the proceedings were excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Supreme Court Proceedings Seeking Prohibition Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) in Relation to Local Court Criminal Proceedings / Application for the Second Defendant's Costs of the Urgent Stay Hearing Before Hamill J on 16 and 17 November 2017, After Dismissal of the Substantive Prohibition Application
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J, except for costs of the abandoned application to be released from the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs of Judicial Review Proceedings' 'prohibition' 'apprehended Bias' 'stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'contradictor' 'attorney General Intervention']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['costs of Judicial Review Proceedings' 'prohibition' 'apprehended Bias' 'stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'contradictor' 'attorney General Intervention']

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 Application in Supreme Court Proceedings Seeking Prohibition Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) in Relation to Local Court Criminal Proceedings / Application for the Second Defendant's Costs of the Urgent Stay Hearing Before Hamill J on 16 and 17 November 2017, After Dismissal of the Substantive Prohibition Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J on 16 and 17 November 2017." 'Whether the second defendant was justified in taking an active role in opposing the stay application rather than filing a submitting appearance.' "Whether the plaintiff's late commencement of proceedings and lack of reasonable notice of the stay application warranted a costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J because the plaintiff's late commencement of the prohibition proceedings and failure to give reasonable notice of the stay application created urgency and deprived the defendants, the Court and the Attorney General of a proper opportunity to consider who should act as contradictor. In those circumstances, the police informant was justified in taking an active role in opposing the stay to protect the timely prosecution of the criminal charges, although the costs of the abandoned application to be released from the proceedings were excluded.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J, except for costs of the abandoned application to be released from the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs of the hearing before Hamill J on 16 and 17 November 2017 apart from the costs of the abandoned application to be released from the proceedings."]