Attorney-General and Minister for Justice v Gregory [see also CA98.409] Summary

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 429
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No.5511 of 1998

Brisbane

[A-G & Minister for Justice v Gregory]

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Appellant

AND:

GREG GREGORY

Respondent

de Jersey CJ McMurdo P White J

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998

Further Order delivered 18 December 1998

Further Order of the Court.

RESPONDENT TO PAY THE APPELLANT'S COSTS OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THE

APPEAL TO BE TAXED.

CATCHWORDS:	COSTS - whether costs order appropriate where appeal seeking to have a solicitor struck off allowed.
Counsel:	Mr P. Keane QC, with him Mr G. Cooper for the appellant. Mr A. Glynn SC for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Mr B.T. Dunphy, Crown Solicitor for the appellant. Price and Roobottom for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	19 November 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No.5511 of 1998

Brisbane

Before

de Jersey CJ McMurdo P White J

[A-G & Minister for Justice v Gregory]

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Appellant

AND:

GREG GREGORY

Respondent

REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998
Further Order delivered 18 December 1998

Following the delivery of judgment on 4 December 1998, the appellant requested that

we order the respondent to pay his costs of and incidental to the appeal. The Court has a general

discretion in that regard. There is no particular reason why, in this case, costs should not follow

the event. We note that in each of Minister for Justice and Attorney General (Queensland) v.

Bax, unreported, Court of Appeal, 12 May 1998 and Minister for Justice and Attorney General

(Queensland) v. Brown, unreported, Court of Appeal, 11 June 1993, the Court, allowing the

appeal and ordering that the practitioner be struck off the Roll of Solicitors, also ordered the

respondent to pay the appellant's costs. There will, in this case, be an order that the respondent

pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General and Minister for Justice v Gregory, the appellant, Mr. Gregory, sought to appeal against a decision by the Supreme Court of South Australia that sought to have him struck off the roll of solicitors. The matter was heard in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which comprised of the Chief Justice and two other judges. The appellant contended that the decision to strike him off was improper and sought to have the decision overturned on appeal. The appellant also sought to have the costs of the proceedings awarded against the respondent.

The court was required to consider whether it was appropriate to make a costs order in favour of the respondent in circumstances where the appeal was allowed. The court had to balance the appellant's right to appeal against the respondent's right to recover costs for the proceedings. The court also had to consider the circumstances in which an order for costs should be made, particularly where the appeal was successful.

The court held that it was appropriate to make a costs order in favour of the respondent in these circumstances. The court noted that the appellant's appeal was essentially a collateral attack on the original decision and that the appeal had little prospect of success. The court held that it was in the interests of justice to make a costs order in favour of the respondent. The court also noted that the appellant had not raised any significant issues during the appeal that would warrant a deviation from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the proceedings. The court held that the respondent was entitled to costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

The court ordered that the respondent be entitled to costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal, to be taxed on the standard basis.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice v Gregory [see also CA98.409]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established