Hariz v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The applicant, Hariz, sought to appeal and review a costs order made by the District Court of New South Wales. The District Court had made an order in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was the successful appellant in an appeal from the Local Court. Hariz contended that the quantum of the costs awarded to the DPP was excessive and that the District Court had failed to properly consider the evidence and submissions presented, alleging procedural unfairness in the process of determining the costs motion.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge erred in assessing the quantum of costs awarded to the DPP. Specifically, the court had to determine if the judge was entitled to make an independent assessment of the costs, notwithstanding that the only evidence proffered by the DPP was a bundle of invoices, some of which included work undertaken in other proceedings. The court also considered whether the judge's decision to deem certain amounts within those invoices as irrelevant or excessive constituted a failure to take account of evidence or submissions, or amounted to procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal held that the District Court judge was entitled to make an independent assessment of the costs. The court reasoned that the invoices presented by the DPP were not conclusive evidence of the reasonableness or relevance of the claimed amounts, particularly where they included work on unrelated matters. The judge was therefore justified in scrutinising the invoices and making a determination as to which amounts were properly attributable to the proceedings before the court and were reasonable. The court found no error in the judge's approach, concluding that the judge had acted within their discretion in assessing the costs.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the summons filed by Hariz and ordered that Hariz pay the costs of the Director of Public Prosecutions.