Re David, Alan and Mary and the Director General Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 1957

Re David, Alan and Mary and the Director General Family and Community Services (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 1957

The Department was the successful party and the plaintiff's asserted bases for no order as to costs did not justify displacing the ordinary rule. However, the confidentiality assurances issue was a sufficiently significant and separable issue that occupied substantial time, so the Department's costs were discounted by 25 per cent and the plaintiff was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the Department's costs from 27 August 2013.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs / Costs Determination After Principal Judgment Declining Permanent Injunction
Outcome
Plaintiff ordered to pay 75 per cent of the Department's costs of the proceedings from 27 August 2013.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'exceptions to Ordinary Costs Rule' 'apportionment of Costs by Issues' 'confidentiality Assurances' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction' 'public Interest Litigation']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'equity' 'child Protection'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'exceptions to Ordinary Costs Rule' 'apportionment of Costs by Issues' 'confidentiality Assurances' 'parens Patriae Jurisdiction' 'public Interest Litigation']

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 / Costs Determination After Principal Judgment Declining Permanent Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the Department's costs under the ordinary rule that costs follow the event." 'Whether the proceedings were a test case, representative action, public interest proceeding, or analogous to parens patriae cases so as to justify no order as to costs.' "Whether the plaintiff's financial circumstances and the possible effect on the children could justify departure from the ordinary costs rule." 'Whether costs should be apportioned because a substantial and separable issue concerning confidentiality assurances occupied significant hearing time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Department was the successful party and the plaintiff's asserted bases for no order as to costs did not justify displacing the ordinary rule. However, the confidentiality assurances issue was a sufficiently significant and separable issue that occupied substantial time, so the Department's costs were discounted by 25 per cent and the plaintiff was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the Department's costs from 27 August 2013.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff ordered to pay 75 per cent of the Department's costs of the proceedings from 27 August 2013.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff is ordered to pay 75 per cent of the Department's costs of these proceedings from 27 August 2013." 'The parties are directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons.']