Ahmad v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2)

The case of Ahmad v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Mr Ahmad, who sought a specified lump sum costs order from the court against the Director of Public Prosecutions. The dispute centred around the discretionary power of the court to award costs in civil proceedings and the application of the general rule that costs follow the event. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, could be held liable for specified lump sum costs under the general rule, despite not being the prevailing party in the proceedings. The court had to determine whether the defendant's conduct justified departing from the general principle that costs follow the event. The court also needed to consider the onus of proving that the general rule should not apply, which rested on the defendant.

In its judgment, the court held that the general rule regarding costs should apply in this case. The court found that the defendant had not discharged the onus of displacing the general rule. It was determined that the conduct of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not warrant an exception to the principle that costs follow the event. The court emphasised that the onus of proving exceptional circumstances lies with the party seeking to depart from the general rule. As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to the specified lump sum costs ordered.

The court's decision confirmed that the general rule of costs following the event applies unless the defendant can demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from that principle. The court did not find any such circumstances in this case, leading to the plaintiff being awarded the specified lump sum costs.