Wilson v State of Victoria (Costs) [2024] FCA 1190

Wilson v State of Victoria (Costs) [2024] FCA 1190

The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; none of the applicant’s arguments—public interest, lack of disentitling conduct by respondents, or financial hardship—justify departure from the general rule.

Parties
First Applicant: Tracey Lee Wilson; Second Applicant: Eric Wilson; First Respondent: State of Victoria; Second Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Summary Dismissal, Remitter From Full Court
Outcome
Costs ordered against applicants; costs fixed in lump sums.
Legal Topics
Costs, Summary Dismissal, Public Interest, Litigants in Person, Disentitling Conduct
Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Costs Summary Dismissal Public Interest Litigants in Person Disentitling Conduct

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracey Lee Wilson

First Applicant

Eric Wilson

Second Applicant

State of Victoria

First Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Summary Dismissal, Remitter From Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event after summary dismissal
  2. 2 Whether disentitling conduct by successful parties precludes costs order
  3. 3 Impact of public interest and financial hardship on costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; none of the applicant’s arguments—public interest, lack of disentitling conduct by respondents, or financial hardship—justify departure from the general rule.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against applicants; costs fixed in lump sums.

Orders

  • The Applicants pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $30,000.
  • The Applicants pay the costs of the Second Respondent fixed in the sum of $20,000.