Crime and Corruption Commission v NDZ

The respondent, an officer of the Queensland Police Service, applied for costs after the Crime and Corruption Commission discontinued a disciplinary referral involving eight charges of corrupt conduct. The alleged misconduct related to the respondent's role in police recruiting, specifically in implementing the Queensland Police Service's recruitment strategy. The referral was initially filed on 5 April 2022, but the hearing was scheduled for 18 March 2024. The Commission discontinued the referral on 26 October 2023. The respondent applied for costs under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The primary legal issue was whether the respondent was entitled to an order for costs in the circumstances, considering the statutory basis for such orders and the principles developed in relevant case law.

The court considered the statutory framework for costs under the QCAT Act, specifically sections 100 and 102. It noted that while section 100 generally mandates that each party bears its own costs, section 102 allows for a costs order if the interests of justice require it. The court acknowledged differing views on the interplay between these sections but focused on the interests of justice considerations outlined in section 102(3). It rejected the view that a strong contra-indication against costs orders, as implied in section 100, should be overcome, as this approach does not adequately account for the diverse jurisdictions of the Tribunal. Instead, the court considered whether the interests of justice simply required a costs order, without needing to overcome a strong contra-indication.

The court concluded that the respondent was not entitled to an order for costs. It considered factors such as the nature and complexity of the dispute, the relative strengths of the parties' claims, and the financial circumstances of the parties. The court found that the discontinuance of the referral did not compel a costs order in the interests of justice. The court also noted the prohibition on publication of the proceedings to protect the privacy of the parties.

The court dismissed the respondent's application for costs and prohibited the publication of the proceedings to the extent that it may identify the respondent or any third party.