VDCL v Purcell [2024] FCA 107

VDCL v Purcell [2024] FCA 107

The applicant was granted leave to discontinue because the respondents did not oppose discontinuance and no injustice was shown. However, the proceeding was properly characterised as the applicant abandoning his claim, not as a case where supervening events rendered the proceeding futile. The applicant's asserted lack of financial means, even if assumed to be the principal reason for discontinuance, was not good reason to relieve him of the costs obligation contemplated by r 26.12(7), particularly where the respondents did not cause his impecuniosity and there was no suggestion that their conduct was unreasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Decision to Issue a Summons Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) and a Determination Under S 7 C(2) of That Act / Application for Leave to File a Notice of Discontinuance and Determination of Costs on the Papers
Outcome
Leave to file a notice of discontinuance granted; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including the application for leave, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Topics
['leave to Discontinue Proceedings' 'costs of Discontinued Proceeding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 26.12(7)' 'impecuniosity as Reason for Discontinuance']
['administrative Law' 'costs' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['leave to Discontinue Proceedings' 'costs of Discontinued Proceeding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 26.12(7)' 'impecuniosity as Reason for Discontinuance']

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

Judicial Review of a Decision to Issue a Summons Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) and a Determination Under S 7 C(2) of That Act / Application for Leave to File a Notice of Discontinuance and Determination of Costs on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to discontinue the proceeding pursuant to r 26.12(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'If leave were granted, whether the Court should order that each party bear their own costs instead of applying r 26.12(7).' "Whether the applicant's lack of financial means constituted good reason to depart from the costs consequence in r 26.12(7)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was granted leave to discontinue because the respondents did not oppose discontinuance and no injustice was shown. However, the proceeding was properly characterised as the applicant abandoning his claim, not as a case where supervening events rendered the proceeding futile. The applicant's asserted lack of financial means, even if assumed to be the principal reason for discontinuance, was not good reason to relieve him of the costs obligation contemplated by r 26.12(7), particularly where the respondents did not cause his impecuniosity and there was no suggestion that their conduct was unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to file a notice of discontinuance granted; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including the application for leave, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted leave to file a notice of discontinuance no later than 14 days from the date of this order.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, including the application for leave to file the notice of discontinuance, to be taxed in default of agreement."]