Kazal v Independent Commission Against Corruption and Ors (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 17

Kazal v Independent Commission Against Corruption and Ors (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 17

The Court held that Mr Kazal, even as a litigant in person, ought to have known from the defence, the correspondence, and the available evidence that his case was without merit and continued in wilful disregard of known facts and law; that he persisted in abandoning unsustainable allegations only after costs had been incurred; and that he unreasonably rejected genuine compromise offers. These factors jointly justified an order for indemnity costs from commencement of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Application for Indemnity Costs Following Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered against the plaintiff, including on the motion struck out by Davies J.
Legal Topics
['indemnity Costs' 'summary Dismissal' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'judicial Review']
['costs'] ['indemnity Costs' 'summary Dismissal' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'judicial Review']

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

Civil / Post Judgment Application for Indemnity Costs Following Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the plaintiff after summary dismissal of proceedings' 'Whether allegations of maliciousness and improper conduct justified indemnity costs' 'Whether refusal of settlement offers was unreasonable in the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Mr Kazal, even as a litigant in person, ought to have known from the defence, the correspondence, and the available evidence that his case was without merit and continued in wilful disregard of known facts and law; that he persisted in abandoning unsustainable allegations only after costs had been incurred; and that he unreasonably rejected genuine compromise offers. These factors jointly justified an order for indemnity costs from commencement of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered against the plaintiff, including on the motion struck out by Davies J.

Orders

  • ["Order 2 of the six orders made on 18 April 2019 is varied: The plaintiff is to pay all the defendants' costs of these proceedings, including the costs ordered by Davies J on 7 September 2018, on an indemnity basis."]