F v Crime and Corruption Commission - [2021] QCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

F v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QCA 253

PARTIES:

F
(appellant)
v
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No XXXX of 2020
SC No XXXX of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 245 (Jackson J)

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Morrison and Mullins JJA and Boddice J

ORDER:

The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where there was an unsuccessful appeal from an application made to a Supreme Court judge – where there are special costs provisions which apply to the application made to the Supreme Court judge – where the appeal was unsuccessful for the same reasons articulated by the primary judge – whether r 766(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) extends the application of the special costs provisions to the making of a costs order in respect of the unsuccessful appeal – whether there should be a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 196, s 332(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 766

F v Crime and Corruption Commission[2021] QCA 244, related

COUNSEL:

R J Anderson QC, with P Morreau, for the appellant
G W Diehm QC, with J S Brien, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ashurst Australia for the appellant
Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent

THE COURT: The court published its reasons for dismissing the appellant’s appeal: F v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QCA 244 (the reasons). The court gave the parties an opportunity to make further submissions on costs in writing which both parties have done.
The appellant submits there ought to be no order as to costs. The respondent submits that costs should follow the event and that a costs order should therefore be made in favour of the respondent.
The grounds of appeal were grouped into four topics for the purpose of dealing with them that were set out in the reasons (at [27]-[30]).
The first topic related to the subject matter that is covered by s 196(7) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) (the Act).
The second topic invoked s 332(1) of the Act. Subsections (3) to (6) of s 332 make special provisions about costs of the application under s 332(1) for a mandatory or restrictive injunction addressed to the respondent.
There were no special costs provisions in the Act that had any application to the third and fourth topics pursued by the appellant.
The appellant submits that the special costs provisions in s 196(7) and s 332(3) of the Act which expressly apply to an application made to a Supreme Court judge respectively under s 196(2) and s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read F v Crime and Corruption Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCA 253
Decision Date: 26 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of F v Crime and Corruption Commission, the dispute centred around the determination of costs associated with an unsuccessful appeal from a decision made by a Supreme Court judge. The Court of Appeal in Queensland was tasked with adjudicating on the applicability of special costs provisions in relation to the appeal. The appellant, F, sought to challenge the decision of the primary judge and the subsequent costs order that was made in favour of the respondent, the Crime and Corruption Commission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether rule 766(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) extended the application of the special costs provisions to the making of a costs order in respect of the unsuccessful appeal. The court had to determine whether there should be a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event, especially given that the appeal was unsuccessful for the same reasons articulated by the primary judge.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature of the special costs provisions and the general principle that costs follow the event. The court found that the special costs provisions applied to the application made to the Supreme Court judge and did not extend to the costs associated with the unsuccessful appeal. Given that the appeal was dismissed on the same grounds as the primary decision, the court concluded that the usual order for costs should apply, and thus, the appellant must bear the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

The final orders of the court mandated that the appellant, F, must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the general principle that costs follow the event, except where specific provisions indicate otherwise.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	F v Crime and Corruption Commission [2021] QCA 253
PARTIES:	F (appellant) v CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No XXXX of 2020 SC No XXXX of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2020] QSC 245 (Jackson J)
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Morrison and Mullins JJA and Boddice J
ORDER:	The appellant must pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – where there was an unsuccessful appeal from an application made to a Supreme Court judge – where there are special costs provisions which apply to the application made to the Supreme Court judge – where the appeal was unsuccessful for the same reasons articulated by the primary judge – whether r 766(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) extends the application of the special costs provisions to the making of a costs order in respect of the unsuccessful appeal – whether there should be a departure from the usual order that costs follow the event Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 196, s 332(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 766 F v Crime and Corruption Commission[2021] QCA 244, related
COUNSEL:	R J Anderson QC, with P Morreau, for the appellant G W Diehm QC, with J S Brien, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ashurst Australia for the appellant Crime and Corruption Commission for the respondent