Legal Research
Cases
Bloomfield v Haralabakos

Bloomfield v Haralabakos

Case [2007] VSC 279 3 August 2007

Judicial Review

Costs

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 6177 of 2006

JASON BLOOMFIELD	Plaintiff
v
STEPHEN HARALABAKOS and COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 June 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 August 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bloomfield v Haralabakos and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 279

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Relief in nature of certiorari – Defendant’s application for costs following successful appeal against conviction rejected in County Court – Adequacy of reasons.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Lavery	Access Law
For the First Defendant	Mr D Trapnell	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The application................................................................................................................................... 1

The material before the Court.......................................................................................................... 1

The record............................................................................................................................................ 3

The discretion as to costs.................................................................................................................. 4

The obligation to give reasons......................................................................................................... 5

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 6

Conclusions......................................................................................................................................... 7

HER HONOUR:

The application

The plaintiff (“Mr Bloomfield”) applies for relief in the nature of certiorari quashing a decision of a County Court judge on 30 March 2006 to reject his application for costs. The costs application was refused after Mr Bloomfield had successfully appealed against his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence of recklessly causing injury (“the offence”).

Mr Bloomfield challenges the learned judge’s decision on two bases. He contends that her Honour’s reasons for refusing him costs are inadequate, demonstrating an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Mr Bloomfield also submits that the record discloses that her Honour made an error of law by refusing costs on the sole ground of his failure to participate in a police record of interview before being charged.

The second defendant took no part in the proceeding, but agreed to abide by the decision of the Court in accordance with the principles in R v Australian Broadcasting, Ex parte Hardiman & Ors.[1] It asked to be heard in relation to costs.
[1](1980) 144 CLR 13 at 55.

The material before the Court

In support of his application, Mr Bloomfield relies upon his affidavit sworn on 5 May 2006 (“Mr Bloomfield’s affidavit”).

The first defendant (“the informant”) relies upon affidavits sworn on 20 October 2006 by :

(a)Adrian Mark Castle, the solicitor handling the case in the Office of Public Prosecutions; and
(b)Marwan El-Asmar, the Office of Public Prosecutions solicitor who had the conduct of the case in the County Court.

The record

It is common ground that the record in question comprises the following :

(a)the charge, filed on 27 December 2004 in the Magistrates’ Court at Heidelberg by the informant;
(b)the certified extract of Mr Bloomfield’s conviction of the offence on 27 May 2005 in the Magistrates’ Court at Heidelberg;
(c)the notification of an appeal to the County Court from the conviction, dated 21 June 2005, showing that Mr Bloomfield entered a plea of not guilty in the Magistrates’ Court;
(d)the content of paragraph 17 of Mr Bloomfield’s affidavit,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bloomfield v Haralabakos

Details

AGLC: Bloomfield v Haralabakos & Anor [2007] VSC 279
Case: [2007] VSC 279
Decision Date: 3 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered an application for costs by the defendant following an appeal against a conviction in the County Court. The appeal was successful, and the defendant sought costs from the plaintiff, who was the prosecutor. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was required to determine whether the defendant was entitled to costs and, if so, the appropriate amount. The central legal issue was whether the defendant had made out a case for costs, and if so, what the appropriate amount should be. The court had to assess the adequacy of the reasons provided for the appeal's success and whether those reasons justified an award of costs.

The court found that the defendant had not demonstrated that the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, and the reasons for the appeal's success were sufficient to warrant an award of costs. However, the court determined that the reasons provided were not detailed enough to justify a full award of costs. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct during the appeal did not warrant an award of costs but did not dismiss the defendant's application outright. Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay a portion of the defendant's costs, reflecting the partial success of the application.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay $5,000 of the defendant's costs, reflecting the partial success of the application. The court found that the defendant's reasons for the appeal's success were sufficient to warrant some costs but not a full award. The court emphasised the importance of providing adequate reasons for an appeal's success to justify an award of costs. The court also noted that the plaintiff's conduct during the appeal did not warrant an award of costs, but the defendant's partial success warranted some costs. The decision highlights the importance of providing detailed reasons for an appeal's success to justify an award of costs and the need for courts to balance the interests of both parties in such matters.

Orders