GG v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 63

GG v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 63

The appellant litigated two distinct challenges: a free-standing challenge to the determination establishing the special investigation, on which he wholly failed, and a challenge to the summons, on which he succeeded. Because each side effectively succeeded on about half the case, and because the appellant's alternative arguments on the summons did not justify departure from the usual costs approach, the just result was that neither side pay the other's costs at first instance or on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Costs / Costs Orders Following Appeal; Liberty to Apply for Variation of Costs Orders
Outcome
Orders 3(b) and 4 made on 26 February 2010 were set aside and replaced with an order that there be no order as to costs either at first instance or on appeal.
Legal Topics
['whether Costs Should Follow the Event' 'identification of the Event for Costs Purposes' 'costs Where Appellant Succeeded on One Category of Relief and Failed on Another']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['whether Costs Should Follow the Event' 'identification of the Event for Costs Purposes' 'costs Where Appellant Succeeded on One Category of Relief and Failed on Another']

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 Concerning Costs / Costs Orders Following Appeal; Liberty to Apply for Variation of Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the provisional costs orders made on 26 February 2010 should be varied.' 'Whether costs should follow the event where the appellant succeeded in challenging the summons but failed in challenging the determination establishing the special investigation.' "Whether the appellant should be deprived of costs or ordered to pay respondents' costs for issues on which he failed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant litigated two distinct challenges: a free-standing challenge to the determination establishing the special investigation, on which he wholly failed, and a challenge to the summons, on which he succeeded. Because each side effectively succeeded on about half the case, and because the appellant's alternative arguments on the summons did not justify departure from the usual costs approach, the just result was that neither side pay the other's costs at first instance or on appeal.

Court Disposition

Orders 3(b) and 4 made on 26 February 2010 were set aside and replaced with an order that there be no order as to costs either at first instance or on appeal.

Orders

  • ['Orders 3(b) and 4 made on 26 February 2010 be set aside.' 'In place of those orders, it be ordered that there be no order as to costs either at first instance or on appeal.']