Grivas v Victoria Police (No 2)
[2020] VSC 73
•26 February 2020
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
S ECI 2018 01638
| JASON GRIVAS | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| VICTORIA POLICE - MICHELLE BELAJ | First Defendant |
| COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Ginnane J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | Determined on the papers |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 26 February 2020 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Grivas v Victoria Police (No 2) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VSC 73 |
---
COSTS – County Court orders refusing to set aside order striking out appeal because of non-appearance – Unsuccessful judicial review proceeding – Costs follow the event – Plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Self–represented Written submissions | |
| For the First Defendant | Written submissions | Mr A Castle, Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
HIS HONOUR:
On 4 December 2019, I made orders dismissing this proceeding.[1]
[1]See Grivas v Victoria Police [2019] VSC 795.
When I delivered the judgment, the plaintiff was participating by telephone from Western Australia and made immediate objection to any costs or expenses being awarded against him in favour of any other party. Accordingly, I gave directions for written submissions about costs on the basis that I would thereafter deliver judgment about costs on the papers without further hearing.
I have considered the written submissions made.
The first defendant sought costs under s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and on the basis of the ordinary rule as to costs that applies to judicial review proceedings.[2]
[2]Amongst other cases the first defendant relied on the judgment in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Costs Ruling) [2011] VSC 49.
The first defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s case was unmeritorious. None of the grounds argued successfully impugned either the specific orders of the County Court under review or the conduct of the County Court proceeding concerned. There was no reason to depart from the ordinary rule on costs.
The plaintiff delivered lengthy written submissions in which he repeated legal submissions that he had made during the hearing. He again sought the setting aside of the court orders that he challenged. He indicated that he wished to appeal this Court’s judgment.
However, the plaintiff was unsuccessful in this judicial review proceeding. The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event. I see no reason to depart from that rule in this case.
The plaintiff must pay the first defendant’s costs of this proceeding to be taxed by the Costs Court in default of agreement.
0