Balog v Independent Commission Against Corruption

[1991] HCATrans 310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S28 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

TIBOR BALOG

Appellant

and

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST

CORRUPTION

Respondent

For mention

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Balog(3) 1 1/11/91

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 1991, AT 2.07 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R. TASSELL:  I appear for the appellant and applicant.

(of Verekers)

MR R. FERRAL-SMITH:  I appear for the respondent.

(Solicitor for the Independent Commission Against

Corruption)

HER HONOUR:  Mr Tassell.

MR TASSELL: This matter arises out of an appeal in 1990.

It is in relation to the costs on one step on the way to that appeal and the parties have been in

dispute. The appellant has filed a motion, there are affidavits in support and submissions and the

parties have consented, subject to the Court's

consent, to the matter being dealt with simply on

the basis of those written submissions.

HER HONOUR:  Is it sufficient for your purposes if I refer

it to the Court as constituted for the hearing of

the matter to be determined on the basis of the

submissions?

MR TASSELL: Yes, it is.

HER HONOUR: Is that sufficient for your purposes?

MR FERRAL-SMITH: Yes, I would agree with that.

HER HONOUR:  I shall do that. What about the costs of this

motion?

MR TASSELL:  The consent orders, which are in the

application book which I have not handed up yet,

simply ask that the Court make such an order as

they think fit.

HER HONOUR:  Should it be costs in the - was it an action or

an appeal? It was an appeal?

MR TASSELL: It was an appeal.
HER HONOUR:	It should be costs in the appeal, should it

not?

MR TASSELL: 

I am in Your Honour's hands.

HER HONOUR: 

It does matter to you, I think, Mr Tassell.

MR TASSELL: 

No, I think costs should follow the cause, of

determination of this application. It is an all or
nothing proposition.

HER HONOUR: 

The costs of this application?

MR TASSELL: Yes.

Balog(3)	1/11/91
MR FERRAL-SMITH:	I would agree with that, Your Honour.
MR TASSELL:	The costs of the appeal itself and this

application for special leave have been dealt with

by the parties.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. The costs of today's motion should follow

the decision of the Court as it was originally

constituted in respect of the matter now in issue.

MR TASSELL: Yes, I think that is right.

MR FERRAL-SMITH: Yes, I would agree with that.

HER HONOUR:	Should I certify for counsel?
MR TASSELL:	No, because we are going on the written

submissions.

HER HONOUR:  That at least is one thing. Thank you very

much. There will be an order in those terms.

AT 2.09 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Balog(3) 3 1/11/91