Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4) - [2025] ACTSC 444

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 444
Hearing Date:	29 September 2025
Decision Date:	29 September 2025
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	(1) The plaintiff is to pay 85 percent of the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – Judicial review proceedings – where plaintiff successful on preliminary parliamentary privilege issue but ultimately unsuccessful – where defendant adopted submissions on parliamentary privilege of Speaker of Legislative Assembly, appearing as amicus – where parties could not waive parliamentary privilege issue – where mere fact that plaintiff is an individual challenging government action insufficient to depart from usual costs order – where proceedings were brought to protect plaintiff’s private interests – costs awarded to defendant, with adjustment for plaintiff’s success on parliamentary privilege issue
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Financial Management Act 1996 (ACT) Integrity Commission Act 2018 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Commonwealth v Vance [2005] ACTCA 35; 224 FLR 243 Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 119 Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 424 Cover v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] ACTSC 71 Hollier v Australian Maritime Safety Authority (No 2) [1998] FCA 975 In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover [2024] ACTSC 197 In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 251 Jorgensen v Supreme Court of the ACT (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 396 Kent v Cavanagh (1973) 1 ACTR 43 McIver v ACT (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 7
Parties:	Leanne Cover (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant) Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory (Amicus Curiae)
Representation:	Counsel IJ King (Plaintiff) B Kaplan (Defendant) P Bindon (Amicus Curiae)
Solicitors Mills Oakley (Plaintiff) ACT Integrity Commission (Defendant) ACT Government Solicitor (Amicus Curiae)
File Number:	SC 199 of 2024

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 18 September 2025, I dismissed these proceedings and permitted the parties to make submissions in relation to costs. The Commission, which was successful in the proceedings, sought that its costs be paid. Ms Cover, who was unsuccessful in the proceedings, sought that there be no order as to costs.
The proceedings had a number of different components:
(a)There was an application for an interlocutory injunction before McCallum CJ. Her Honour refused an injunction and ordered that the costs of the application be the defendant’s costs in the cause: In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover [2024] ACTSC 197; In the matter of an application by Leanne Cover (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 251.
(b)There was a second application for an interlocutory injunction relating to a report that was different to the report the subject of these proceedings, which I heard and dismissed. I ordered that the costs of that second application be reserved: Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 119.
(c)There was a hearing on 3 March 2025 in relation to the Speaker of the…

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 Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4) [2025] ACTSC 444
Case: [2025] ACTSC 444
Decision Date: 29 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cover v ACT Integrity Commission (No 4) involved the plaintiff, Cover, challenging the costs order made against him after losing his judicial review proceedings against the defendant, the ACT Integrity Commission. The dispute arose from Cover's attempt to challenge certain actions taken by the Integrity Commission in relation to his business. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiff should be required to pay the majority of the defendant's costs, given that he was successful on one issue but ultimately unsuccessful in his challenge. The court had to determine whether the fact that the plaintiff was an individual challenging government action warranted a departure from the usual costs order. Additionally, the court considered the submissions made by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who appeared as an amicus on the issue of parliamentary privilege. The court was also required to assess whether the parties could have waived the parliamentary privilege issue, and whether the proceedings were brought primarily to protect the plaintiff's private interests.

In making its decision, the court noted that the plaintiff's success on the preliminary issue of parliamentary privilege did not warrant a significant departure from the usual costs order. The court held that the fact that the plaintiff was an individual challenging government action was not enough to warrant a different costs order. Furthermore, the court determined that the parliamentary privilege issue could not be waived by the parties. The court found that the proceedings were brought primarily to protect the plaintiff's private interests, which did not entitle him to a costs benefit. The court ultimately decided that the plaintiff should pay 85% of the defendant's costs, with an adjustment for the plaintiff's success on the parliamentary privilege issue.

The court's final order was that the plaintiff is to pay 85% of the defendant's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, with an adjustment for the plaintiff's success on the parliamentary privilege issue. This outcome reflects the court's balanced approach to the costs issue, taking into account the plaintiff's partial success, the nature of the proceedings, and the inability to waive the parliamentary privilege issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The plaintiff is to pay 85 percent of the defendant’s costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.