Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner (No 2) [2015] FCA 279

Ogawa v Australian Information Commissioner (No 2) [2015] FCA 279

Given Dr Ogawa was successful in relation to two decisions (which concerned the same subject matter) and unsuccessful on the remaining substantial matters, and having regard to the conduct of the proceedings, the appropriate order is that the first respondent pay 33⅓% of Dr Ogawa's costs (if any), and Dr Ogawa pay 66⅔% of the first respondent's costs.

Parties
Applicant: Megumi Ogawa; First Respondent: Australian Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Toowong Private Hospital; Third Respondent: Michele Calvird; Fourth Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law – Costs / Determination of Costs Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Partial costs awarded to each party in proportions reflecting success and conduct.
Legal Topics
Costs, Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs Exercise of Judicial Discretion in Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Megumi Ogawa

Applicant

Australian Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Toowong Private Hospital

Second Respondent

Michele Calvird

Third Respondent

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law – Costs / Determination of Costs Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What orders should be made regarding the payment of costs between the parties following the outcome of the principal proceeding?

Ratio Decidendi

Given Dr Ogawa was successful in relation to two decisions (which concerned the same subject matter) and unsuccessful on the remaining substantial matters, and having regard to the conduct of the proceedings, the appropriate order is that the first respondent pay 33⅓% of Dr Ogawa's costs (if any), and Dr Ogawa pay 66⅔% of the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Partial costs awarded to each party in proportions reflecting success and conduct.

Orders

  • The first respondent pay 33⅓% of the applicant's costs (if any) of and incidental to the proceeding.
  • The applicant pay 66⅔% of the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding.