Da Rin v Duffy (No2) [2014] NSWCATOD 59

Da Rin v Duffy (No2) [2014] NSWCATOD 59

It was fair, by exception to the usual rule, to order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs from 12 March 2013 as agreed or assessed, given the public interest in upholding electoral integrity, the conduct of both parties, and the relative strength of the claims. However, indemnity costs were not justified as the respondent's case was borderline and there was no wilful disregard of known facts or law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Dismissal From Civic Office / Costs Determination Following Principal Decision
Outcome
Respondent to pay applicant's costs from 12 March 2013 on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed; application for indemnity costs rejected.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'dismissal From Civic Office' 'electoral Eligibility' 'public Interest Litigation']
['administrative Law' 'local Government Law'] ['costs' 'dismissal From Civic Office' 'electoral Eligibility' 'public Interest Litigation']

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

Application for Dismissal From Civic Office / Costs Determination Following Principal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is fair to depart from the ordinary rule that each party bear their own costs in a dismissal from civic office proceeding' 'Whether the applicant should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis or party-party basis' 'Whether costs can include professional fees of a non-lawyer agent']

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair, by exception to the usual rule, to order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs from 12 March 2013 as agreed or assessed, given the public interest in upholding electoral integrity, the conduct of both parties, and the relative strength of the claims. However, indemnity costs were not justified as the respondent's case was borderline and there was no wilful disregard of known facts or law.

Court Disposition

Respondent to pay applicant's costs from 12 March 2013 on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed; application for indemnity costs rejected.

Orders

  • ["That pursuant to s 88 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 the respondent pay the applicant's costs from 12 March 2013 as agreed or assessed."]