Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Geraghty [2000] NSWSC 911
The costs incurred by the applicants in relation to their examination before the registrar were costs of and incidental to proceedings in the court, and with the proceedings having concluded in their favour, no reason of discretion was found to deny them a costs order. The investigatory/inquisitorial nature of the proceeding did not preclude a costs award as the applicants’ property interests were plainly at risk.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 September 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Post Hearing; Determination on Costs
- Outcome
- Costs ordered in favour of applicants
- Legal Topics
- ['costs' 'restraining Orders' 'examination Before Registrar']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Hearing; Determination on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicants are entitled to recover legal costs incurred in connection with their examination before the registrar under s 48(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth)']
Ratio Decidendi
The costs incurred by the applicants in relation to their examination before the registrar were costs of and incidental to proceedings in the court, and with the proceedings having concluded in their favour, no reason of discretion was found to deny them a costs order. The investigatory/inquisitorial nature of the proceeding did not preclude a costs award as the applicants’ property interests were plainly at risk.
Court Disposition
Costs ordered in favour of applicants
Orders
- ["The DPP is to pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to their examination before the registrar."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment