Ehrke v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (No 2) [2020] FCA 754

Ehrke v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (No 2) [2020] FCA 754

The applicant failed on the principal issue and only succeeded on a subsidiary issue, which did not ultimately assist her; the public interest arguments did not justify a departure from the usual costs order; the applicant is ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Parties
Applicant: Millie Ehrke; First Respondent: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner; Third Respondent: Stephanie Forgie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Judgment
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Public Interest Litigation
Administrative Law Employment Law Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millie Ehrke

Applicant

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner

First Respondent

Stephanie Forgie

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether public interest litigation justifies departure from usual costs order
  3. 3 Whether mixed success on issues warrants apportionment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed on the principal issue and only succeeded on a subsidiary issue, which did not ultimately assist her; the public interest arguments did not justify a departure from the usual costs order; the applicant is ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings.