SS v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 760

SS v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 760

The ACC was not entitled to costs of the withdrawn application for leave to re-open because the relevant document had always been in its possession and its conduct caused the late and unconventional application. SS was also not entitled to costs because the ACC was obliged to produce and seek to tender the relevant document, SS objected to the tender, and no evidentiary basis supported SS's allegations of impropriety. Accordingly, costs of that part of the hearing should lie where they fall. SS's notice of motion was necessary because SS required leave to rely on additional submissions after judgment had been reserved, not because the ACC refused consent, and the nature of those...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs / Determination of Reserved Costs Issues by Written Submissions After Dismissal of the Application
Outcome
Reserved costs issues determined: each party to bear its own costs of the withdrawn application for leave to re-open; the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the applicant's notice of motion filed 25 May 2009; video-link costs remained within the general costs order against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['withdrawn Application for Leave to Re Open' 'costs in the Cause' 'further Submissions After Judgment Reserved' 'continuing Discovery Obligations' 'public Interest Immunity']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['withdrawn Application for Leave to Re Open' 'costs in the Cause' 'further Submissions After Judgment Reserved' 'continuing Discovery Obligations' 'public Interest Immunity']

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

Costs / Determination of Reserved Costs Issues by Written Submissions After Dismissal of the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant or the respondents should receive a costs order in relation to preparation for and the hearing of the first respondent's withdrawn application for leave to re-open." "Whether the costs of the video-link used for Andrew Cann's evidence on 27 March 2009 should be treated separately from the general costs order." "Whether the applicant should receive indemnity costs, or any costs, for the applicant's notice of motion filed 25 May 2009 and heard on 29 May 2009 seeking leave to rely on further submissions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The ACC was not entitled to costs of the withdrawn application for leave to re-open because the relevant document had always been in its possession and its conduct caused the late and unconventional application. SS was also not entitled to costs because the ACC was obliged to produce and seek to tender the relevant document, SS objected to the tender, and no evidentiary basis supported SS's allegations of impropriety. Accordingly, costs of that part of the hearing should lie where they fall. SS's notice of motion was necessary because SS required leave to rely on additional submissions after judgment had been reserved, not because the ACC refused consent, and the nature of those...

Court Disposition

Reserved costs issues determined: each party to bear its own costs of the withdrawn application for leave to re-open; the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the applicant's notice of motion filed 25 May 2009; video-link costs remained within the general costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • ["Each party is to pay its own costs of preparation for and the hearing between 11.30 am and 12.45 pm on 24 April 2009 with respect to the first respondent's (withdrawn) application for leave to re-open." "The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the applicant's notice of motion filed 25 May 2009 and heard...