Sayer-Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1786

Sayer-Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1786

Exceptional circumstances per s 70(1)(d) were established justifying a limited order for costs, but the vast majority of the plaintiff’s claimed disbursements were not recoverable as either not authorised or not reasonable. The proceedings were criminal, so most court fees and miscellaneous expenses were not validly payable, and the only recoverable item was a reasonable sum for printing and photocopying.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs Following Successful Appeal Under Part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs order for plaintiff in sum of $100 limited to printing/photocopying; all other relief refused.
Legal Topics
['costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'costs Following Successful Appeal' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings' 'court Fees in Criminal Matters']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'procedure'] ['costs in Criminal Proceedings' 'costs Following Successful Appeal' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings' 'court Fees in Criminal Matters']

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 for Costs Following Successful Appeal Under Part 5 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court had power to order costs in criminal appeal proceedings commenced under Part 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)' 'Whether such proceedings are civil or criminal for the purposes of costs and court fees' 'Whether exceptional circumstances justify a costs order in favour of the successful appellant under s 70(1)(d)' 'Whether and what quantum of costs could be awarded to a self-represented litigant' 'Whether conduct relating to legal database access and forum shopping affected cost recovery']

Ratio Decidendi

Exceptional circumstances per s 70(1)(d) were established justifying a limited order for costs, but the vast majority of the plaintiff’s claimed disbursements were not recoverable as either not authorised or not reasonable. The proceedings were criminal, so most court fees and miscellaneous expenses were not validly payable, and the only recoverable item was a reasonable sum for printing and photocopying.

Court Disposition

Costs order for plaintiff in sum of $100 limited to printing/photocopying; all other relief refused.

Orders

  • ["Refuse the plaintiff's application made on 12 December 2019 to put on further submissions." "Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in the sum of $100, such amount to be paid within 28 days hereof." 'Otherwise make no order as to costs.']