Inspector Michael Dall v Brambles Australia [2006] NSWIRComm 308

Inspector Michael Dall v Brambles Australia [2006] NSWIRComm 308

Although an Agreed Statement of Facts would have assisted the Court, its absence did not alter the way the litigation was conducted, which was expeditious by both parties. The prosecution did not establish special circumstances, and the fact that the charge and all elements were established before the defendant succeeded on the s28(b) defence did not justify departing from the usual order that costs follow the event or support apportionment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Prosecution Under S10(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Defendant's Application for Costs After the Charge Was Found Proven But Dismissed on the Defendant's Defence Under S28(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
Outcome
Defendant's application for costs granted.
Legal Topics
["defendant's Costs After Dismissed Prosecution" 'discretionary Costs Order' 'costs Follow the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'agreed Statement of Facts' 'defence Under S28(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Procedure' 'costs'] ["defendant's Costs After Dismissed Prosecution" 'discretionary Costs Order' 'costs Follow the Event' 'apportionment of Costs' 'agreed Statement of Facts' 'defence Under S28(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000']

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

Prosecution Under S10(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 / Defendant's Application for Costs After the Charge Was Found Proven But Dismissed on the Defendant's Defence Under S28(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful defendant should receive an order for costs after the prosecution was dismissed because of the s28(b) defence.' "Whether the defendant's failure to agree to an Agreed Statement of Facts created special circumstances justifying refusal or apportionment of costs." 'Whether the fact that the prosecution established the charge and all elements of the offence before the defence succeeded justified varying the usual costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although an Agreed Statement of Facts would have assisted the Court, its absence did not alter the way the litigation was conducted, which was expeditious by both parties. The prosecution did not establish special circumstances, and the fact that the charge and all elements were established before the defendant succeeded on the s28(b) defence did not justify departing from the usual order that costs follow the event or support apportionment.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for costs granted.

Orders

  • ["The prosecution should pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed." 'Leave to apply if no agreement reached.']