GG v Australian Crime Commission (No 2)

The case of GG v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) involved the appellant, GG, and the Australian Crime Commission. The dispute centred on the issue of costs following the outcome of proceedings initiated by the appellant against the Commission. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether costs should follow the event and what the event was in this context. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the costs orders should reflect the fact that the appellant claimed two different categories of relief, succeeding on only one of these claims.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the interpretation of the principle that costs should follow the event, and how this principle should be applied when a party has sought multiple forms of relief but only partially succeeded. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellant's partial success justified a costs order in his favour, and if so, what form that order should take given the dual nature of his claims. The court also needed to weigh the principles of fairness in litigation against the potential for disincentivizing litigation through the imposition of costs.

The High Court determined that, given the appellant's partial success, the costs orders made at first instance and on appeal should be set aside. Instead of ordering costs in favour of either party, the court decided that no order as to costs should be made. This decision was based on the principle that costs should follow the event, but also recognised the complexity introduced by the appellant's dual claims. The court concluded that a neutral approach, where neither party bears the costs, was the fairest outcome in this particular case. Consequently, the orders from earlier proceedings were set aside, and it was directed that there be no order as to costs either at first instance or on appeal.