Cosenza v The State of South Australia (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
COSENZA v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA & ANOR (No 2)
[2018] SASC 115
Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis
17 August 2018
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE - COSTS
Application for costs after dismissing an application for certain declarations as to the unlawfulness of certain actions taken by the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office on discretionary grounds: Cosenza v State of South Australia & Anor [2017] SASC 183.
Held per Kourakis CJ:
1. The order that Mr Cosenza pays the defendant's costs of the morning of 21 April 2017 is confirmed.
2. The Court makes no further order as to costs.

COSENZA v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA & ANOR (No 2)
[2018] SASC 115
Civil

KOURAKIS CJ: On 11 December 2017, I dismissed the plaintiff’s application for declarations, as to the unlawfulness of certain action taken by the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Office, on discretionary grounds. Even though the plaintiff was successful with respect to a number of the substantive legal propositions which arose on his application, I exercised the discretion adversely to Mr Cosenza primarily because it was clear that he had no valid ground excusing him from responsibility for the underlying expiation fees.
Nonetheless, as I have already observed, the Commissioner lost on several of the important issues concerning the proper administration of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 (SA).
In all of the circumstances, other than to confirm the order that Mr Cosenza pays the defendant’s costs of the morning of 21 April 2017, I make no further order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Cosenza, the appellant, and the State of South Australia, the respondent. Cosenza sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, which pertained to the denial of his application for a liquor licence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Cosenza argued that the decision was flawed and sought an order for the review of the decision, as well as an order for the decision to be set aside. The State of South Australia contended that the decision was valid and sought an order dismissing Cosenza's application for judicial review.

The legal issues before the court included whether the decision was legally valid and whether the court should award costs. In determining the validity of the decision, the court considered whether the decision-maker had followed the correct legal principles and procedures, and whether there had been any errors of law. The court also considered whether there were any grounds for the review of the decision. In relation to the issue of costs, the court considered the conduct of the parties during the proceedings and whether an order for costs was warranted.

The court found that the decision was legally valid and dismissed Cosenza's application for judicial review. The court found that the decision-maker had followed the correct legal principles and procedures and that there had been no errors of law. The court also found that there were no grounds for the review of the decision. In relation to the issue of costs, the court found that the conduct of both parties during the proceedings had been reasonable and that an order for costs was not warranted. The court declined to make any order for costs.

The final orders of the court were that Cosenza's application for judicial review be dismissed, and that no order for costs be made. The decision of the primary judge was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established