Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Local Court of NSW (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 515

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Local Court of NSW (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 515

The Supreme Court of NSW has the jurisdiction and discretion to make costs orders on appeal from the Local Court under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). In the circumstances, where the plaintiff succeeded in setting aside orders that should not have been made, costs should follow the event: Ms Apps to pay 75% of the plaintiff's costs owing to her principal role in defending the orders, the Department to pay 25% due to its partial role, and no order as to costs against the DPP due to limited involvement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Costs Determination Following Principal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Costs order made in favour of the plaintiff, apportioned between third and fourth defendants
Legal Topics
['costs' 'appeals' 'suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'appeals' 'suppression Orders' 'non Publication Orders' 'jurisdiction']

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

Appeal / Costs Determination Following Principal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to make a costs order on an appeal against an order under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)' 'How costs should be apportioned among several parties involved in the appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of NSW has the jurisdiction and discretion to make costs orders on appeal from the Local Court under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). In the circumstances, where the plaintiff succeeded in setting aside orders that should not have been made, costs should follow the event: Ms Apps to pay 75% of the plaintiff's costs owing to her principal role in defending the orders, the Department to pay 25% due to its partial role, and no order as to costs against the DPP due to limited involvement.

Court Disposition

Costs order made in favour of the plaintiff, apportioned between third and fourth defendants

Orders

  • ["Order the third defendant to pay 75% of the plaintiff's costs of the appeal." "Order the fourth defendant to pay 25% of the plaintiff's costs of the appeal."]