Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 827

Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 827

The Supreme Court had power under s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), or under inherent or implied powers flowing from that jurisdiction, to award costs in an appeal under Part 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The Review Act did not disclose an intention to exclude such costs orders. Because...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Dismissal of an Appeal Under S 56(1)(a) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs
Outcome
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['unsuccessful Appeal by Prosecutor' 'power to Award Costs' 'part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)' 'supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) S 23' 'inherent or Implied Powers']
['costs' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['unsuccessful Appeal by Prosecutor' 'power to Award Costs' 'part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw)' 'supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) S 23' 'inherent or Implied Powers']

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 Application Following Dismissal of an Appeal Under S 56(1)(a) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court had power to order costs in an appeal under Part 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) where no express provision conferred such a power.' 'Whether Cunningham v Cunningham (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 954 and related authorities were clearly wrong in holding that s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) enabled costs orders in such appeals.' "Whether, if the power existed, the discretion should be exercised to order the unsuccessful plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court had power under s 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), or under inherent or implied powers flowing from that jurisdiction, to award costs in an appeal under Part 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The Review Act did not disclose an intention to exclude such costs orders. Because the plaintiff was unsuccessful in the appeal, the only established legal error in the Local Court was caused by the plaintiff, and nothing disentitled the defendants to costs, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings."]