Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Local Court of NSW (No.2)

In this case, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, represented by the ABC, sought to appeal against an order made by the Local Court of New South Wales, which had ruled that certain court proceedings were to be suppressed and not published. The ABC argued that the suppression order was too wide and unauthorised by the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). The legal issues before the court involved the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make a costs order in such appeals and the proportion of costs to be awarded among the various parties involved, particularly where one party defended orders that were ultimately found to be untenable and unauthorised.

The court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to make a costs order on an appeal against an order under the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW). It also examined the principles for determining the proportion of costs where multiple parties are involved, especially when one party defends an order that was subsequently found to be unauthorised and too wide. The court found that the Supreme Court did have the jurisdiction to make such a costs order. In determining the proportion of costs, the court considered that the ABC, which had defended the suppression order on untenable grounds, should bear a significant portion of the costs. The court concluded that the ABC's defence was unreasonable and that it had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The court awarded costs against the ABC, recognising that its defence was not only unsuccessful but also lacked any reasonable prospect of success. The court emphasised that the ABC had sought to defend an order that was too wide and unauthorised by the relevant legislation. This led to the conclusion that the ABC should bear a substantial share of the costs. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that suppression orders are both necessary and proportionate, and that parties must carefully consider the grounds on which they seek to defend such orders. The court ordered that the ABC pay a significant proportion of the costs of the appeal.