Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (No 4) [2008] FCA 1971

Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (No 4) [2008] FCA 1971

Further substantive relief was refused because there had been no impropriety by the Commission or its officers, no specific use had been made of the Disputed Documents, all copies had been returned, destroyed or removed from Commission records, and the likelihood of any relevant officer recalling significant detail was slight; any advantage from access was ephemeral and did not justify restraining the investigative team. Indemnity costs were refused because abandonment of the Cox & Railton contention did not establish that it had been unreasonable to advance it. Mr Hogan was nevertheless entitled to his costs of the first and second phases, and his own costs of the media-access phase,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Claims of Legal Professional Privilege Over Documents Seized Pursuant to Summonses and Notices Issued Under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth). / Reasons for Judgment on Further Substantive Relief and Costs After Hearings on 28 October 2008 and 8 December 2008.
Outcome
No further substantive relief was granted. The respondents were to pay Mr Hogan's costs except for the costs relating to the argument concerning further substantive relief; indemnity costs and indemnity for the media interveners' costs were refused.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'australian Crime Commission Notices and Summonses' 'operation Wickenby' 'cox & Railton Exception' 'discovery' 'confidentiality and Media Access to Court Documents' 'indemnity Costs']
['administrative Law' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'australian Crime Commission Notices and Summonses' 'operation Wickenby' 'cox & Railton Exception' 'discovery' 'confidentiality and Media Access to Court Documents' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Concerning Claims of Legal Professional Privilege Over Documents Seized Pursuant to Summonses and Notices Issued Under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth). / Reasons for Judgment on Further Substantive Relief and Costs After Hearings on 28 October 2008 and 8 December 2008.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether persons who had access to the Disputed Documents should be identified to Mr Hogan and the Court.' 'Whether officers, employees, agents or external advisers who had access to the Disputed Documents should be restrained from further involvement in Operation Wickenby insofar as it concerned Mr Hogan or similar investigations involving allegations against him.' 'Whether the respondents should pay costs from commencement of the proceeding and whether those costs should be on an indemnity basis.' 'Whether the respondents should indemnify Mr Hogan for the costs order made against him in favour of media interests.']

Ratio Decidendi

Further substantive relief was refused because there had been no impropriety by the Commission or its officers, no specific use had been made of the Disputed Documents, all copies had been returned, destroyed or removed from Commission records, and the likelihood of any relevant officer recalling significant detail was slight; any advantage from access was ephemeral and did not justify restraining the investigative team. Indemnity costs were refused because abandonment of the Cox & Railton contention did not establish that it had been unreasonable to advance it. Mr Hogan was nevertheless entitled to his costs of the first and second phases, and his own costs of the media-access phase,...

Court Disposition

No further substantive relief was granted. The respondents were to pay Mr Hogan's costs except for the costs relating to the argument concerning further substantive relief; indemnity costs and indemnity for the media interveners' costs were refused.

Orders

  • ['There should be no further substantive orders in the proceeding.' "The Commission should pay Mr Hogan's costs save for the costs of the argument concerning further substantive relief." 'There should be no order as to the costs of the further substantive relief phase.' 'The respondents should not indemnify Mr Hogan...