XIE & Anor v SHAOJI [2008] NSWSC 279

XIE & Anor v SHAOJI [2008] NSWSC 279

There was no proper basis to order the Attorney General to pay the plaintiffs' costs. The particulars correspondence was not raised at the hearing and had no bearing on the costs of the notices of motion; the model litigant material was irrelevant to the costs application and no non-model-litigant conduct by the Attorney General as litigant was shown; and the issue and replacement of the s 40 certificates did not justify a costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Common Law Proceedings / After Judgment on Two Notices of Motion Granting the Attorney General Limited Leave to Intervene and Dismissing the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
['costs of Intervention Application' 'model Litigant Obligation' 'foreign States Immunities Act Certificates' 'conditional Appearance' 'particulars']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of Intervention Application' 'model Litigant Obligation' 'foreign States Immunities Act Certificates' 'conditional Appearance' 'particulars']

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 Application in Common Law Proceedings / After Judgment on Two Notices of Motion Granting the Attorney General Limited Leave to Intervene and Dismissing the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia should pay all or part of the plaintiffs' costs arising out of the application to intervene." 'Whether alleged failure by the Australian Government Solicitor to provide requested particulars supported a costs order.' "Whether alleged failure to provide information concerning conditional appearance and the Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant supported a costs order." 'Whether the issue of consecutive certificates under s 40 of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 justified a costs order in favour of the plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no proper basis to order the Attorney General to pay the plaintiffs' costs. The particulars correspondence was not raised at the hearing and had no bearing on the costs of the notices of motion; the model litigant material was irrelevant to the costs application and no non-model-litigant conduct by the Attorney General as litigant was shown; and the issue and replacement of the s 40 certificates did not justify a costs order.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • ['No order as to costs.']