Australian Capital Territory v SMEC Australia Pty Ltd

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) brought proceedings against SMEC Australia Pty Ltd, seeking the production of documents. The central issue was whether certain documents prepared by the Auditor-General were protected from disclosure by s 16(2) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth). Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of the applications for document production, given that the applications were resolved by consent and the defendants were successful in their submissions.

The court examined the nature and scope of parliamentary privilege, particularly in light of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (UK). The court noted that Article 9, which is part of Commonwealth law, aims to ensure that Parliament can conduct its business without interference from the Crown or its judges. In considering the scope of this privilege, the court referenced the decision in R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52, which highlighted the importance of maintaining Parliament’s sovereignty. The court concluded that the documents in question were indeed protected by parliamentary privilege, as they were closely and directly connected to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.

The court also addressed the issue of costs. Given that the parties had resolved the applications by consent and the defendants were successful in their submissions, the court found that the plaintiff should bear the costs of the applications. The court emphasised that the principle of costs following the event applied, and since the defendants were successful on the applications, the plaintiff was liable for the costs.

The final orders of the court were that the documents prepared by the Auditor-General were protected by parliamentary privilege, and the plaintiff was to bear the costs of the applications as determined by the court.