Curnow v Police

In the case of Curnow v Police, the appellants contested a decision of the Magistrates Court of Victoria concerning an order for costs. The dispute arose after the appellants were found not guilty of certain charges. The respondents, who were the police, sought costs against the appellants. The matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the magistrate's order for costs was correctly made and whether the appellants needed permission to appeal the decision.

The central legal issue was whether the appellants were required to obtain permission to appeal the magistrate's order for costs. The Court of Appeal examined Rule 51.03 of the Magistrates Court Rules 1992, which sets out the procedure for costs in the Magistrates Court. The appellants argued that this rule restricted the court's discretion to award costs, thus precluding an appeal without permission. The respondents contended that the rule did not inhibit the court's discretion and that the magistrate had correctly exercised their authority in ordering costs according to the scale.

The Court of Appeal found that the magistrate did not err in ordering that costs be paid in accordance with the scale of costs in the First Schedule of the Magistrates Court Rules 1992. However, the court identified that the magistrate had incorrectly calculated the amount of costs. The court held that there was no justification for departing from the scale in this instance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the magistrate to recalculate the costs in accordance with the correct scale.

No specific orders were made by the Court of Appeal beyond allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the magistrate for reassessment of the costs. The court did not address the issue of whether permission was required to appeal the costs order, as it found the magistrate's approach to be correct in principle but flawed in execution.