Agar v McCabe (No 3)

The case of Agar v McCabe (No 3) involves the plaintiff, Agar, who was charged with a single count of exceeding the speed limit. Agar sought judicial review of the decision of McCabe, a Magistrate, to refuse an application for the release of subpoenaed documents and a costs order. The plaintiff had previously unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the same decision, but had succeeded in relation to the costs order (see Agar v The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, [2014] VSC 309). The matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court at Frankston to rehear and determine the costs application according to law. After the costs application was reheard by a different Magistrate, the Magistrate awarded costs of the same order as originally ordered. The plaintiff sought further judicial review of this decision, claiming it involved a jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record.

The court was required to determine whether the decision to award costs involved a jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record. The plaintiff argued that the error in the identity of the person awarded costs was such as to vitiate the decision. The court considered whether the error was of such a nature that it went to the root of the decision-making process and rendered it invalid. The court also considered the appropriate exercise of discretion in relation to an order in the nature of certiorari.

The court found that the error in the identity of the person awarded costs was not such as to vitiate the decision. The court held that the error did not go to the root of the decision-making process and did not render the decision invalid. The court considered the appropriate exercise of discretion in relation to an order in the nature of certiorari and concluded that the decision to award costs was not a jurisdictional error or error on the face of the record. The court dismissed the application for further judicial review.

The court did not make any further orders.