El-Ali v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Local Court of NSW (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1283

El-Ali v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Local Court of NSW (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1283

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the CDPP's costs in both proceedings because every issue he argued was determined against him, the first proceedings failed at a fundamental level, his fragmented approach caused unnecessary delay and costs, both proceedings lacked practical utility, and his construction of s....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Costs / Written Submissions Following Dismissal of the First Proceedings and Second Proceedings
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the first defendant in both proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'costs in Proceedings Connected With Criminal Proceedings' 'construction of S. 6(1)(m) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (cth)' 'declaratory Relief' 'statutory Appeal and Review']
['costs' 'criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Following the Event' 'costs in Proceedings Connected With Criminal Proceedings' 'construction of S. 6(1)(m) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (cth)' 'declaratory Relief' 'statutory Appeal and Review']

Source-derived case record

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

Costs / Written Submissions Following Dismissal of the First Proceedings and Second Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should pay the first defendant's costs in proceedings 2015/11558 and 2015/188030." 'Whether the discretion to award costs should be exercised against the plaintiff where the proceedings were said to form part of the criminal process.' 'Whether special reasons were required or present to justify a costs order in favour of the CDPP.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the CDPP's costs in both proceedings because every issue he argued was determined against him, the first proceedings failed at a fundamental level, his fragmented approach caused unnecessary delay and costs, both proceedings lacked practical utility, and his construction of s. 6(1)(m) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) was contrary to R v Dexter and lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the first defendant in both proceedings.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 2015/11558, the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the first defendant as agreed or assessed.' 'In proceedings 2015/188030, the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the first defendant as agreed or assessed.']