Attorney-General (SA) v Marmanidis (No 2)

The appeal before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerned the costs of a judicial review action. The original dispute involved Mr Germein seeking damages from Dr Marmanidis in the Magistrates Court for a motor vehicle collision. Mr Germein obtained default judgment for $2,080, which included costs for repairs and a hire car. Dr Marmanidis's application to set aside this judgment was dismissed by a Magistrate. She then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, which was converted to a judicial review action, with the Attorney-General intervening. A single judge quashed the default judgment, finding it irregular due to a lack of evidentiary material for the hire car component. The Attorney-General appealed this decision.

The Full Court was required to determine the appropriate costs orders for both the appeal and the underlying action, given its own conclusions on the substantive issues. The Court had previously found that Mr Germein was not entitled to judgment for the hire car costs and that the Magistrate had erred in not considering this irregularity. However, by majority, the Court had refused to grant judicial review, exercising its discretion to dismiss the action.

The Court reasoned that, as the judicial review action had been dismissed, the substantive issues had been resolved in favour of Dr Marmanidis to the extent that the default judgment was irregular. However, the Court's discretion to refuse judicial review meant that the default judgment, though irregular, was not formally set aside by the Full Court. Applying the general principle that costs follow the event, but considering the mixed success and the exercise of discretion, the Court ordered that Dr Marmanidis pay 50 per cent of the costs of the appeal for both the Attorney-General and Mr Germein. Each party was to bear their own costs of the underlying action.