Gee v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

The applicant, Gee, sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders made by a primary judge in proceedings against the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The dispute concerned costs orders made by the primary judge.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders where the primary judgment did not involve any question of principle and the primary judge had exercised a discretion regarding costs.

Bell P and Macfarlan JA dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Their Honours reasoned that leave to appeal from interlocutory orders is generally not granted unless the appeal raises a question of principle or there are other special circumstances. In this instance, the primary judge had a broad discretion regarding costs, and no error in the exercise of that discretion was demonstrated. The Court found that the appeal did not involve a question of principle and there were no special circumstances warranting the grant of leave.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.