Health Care Complaints Commission v Ake

The respondent, Ms Ake, a registered nurse, was found by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, resulting in her deregistration as a nurse. The Health Care Complaints Commission brought proceedings against Ms Ake, and while successful, the Commission did not establish some of the particulars it alleged. The Commission applied for costs, but the Tribunal ordered that both parties bear their own costs. The Commission sought judicial review of the costs order, arguing the Tribunal did not give sufficient reasons, applied incorrect principles, denied procedural fairness, and the decision was unreasonable or affected by latent error. The Supreme Court allowed the Commission's appeal and ordered Ms Ake to pay half of the Commission's costs.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for its costs order, whether it applied the correct principles, whether it denied procedural fairness, and whether the decision was unreasonable or affected by latent error. Additionally, the court considered whether the Tribunal's order for each party to bear their own costs was unreasonable given the Commission's success in establishing some of the allegations against Ms Ake and the fact that certain submissions as to costs were not made before the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's failure to give reasons as to why it ordered each party to bear their own costs was a denial of procedural fairness. The court also found that the Tribunal's order was unreasonable given the Commission's partial success in the proceedings. The court noted that the general rule was that costs follow the event, but there are exceptions, particularly in administrative tribunals. The court held that, in this case, it was appropriate to order Ms Ake to pay half of the Commission's costs, given the Commission's partial success and the fact that certain submissions as to costs were not made before the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered that Ms Ake pay half of the Commission's costs. The court found that the Tribunal's failure to give reasons for its costs order was a denial of procedural fairness, and that the order itself was unreasonable. The court held that it was appropriate to order Ms Ake to pay half of the Commission's costs, given the Commission's partial success in the proceedings and the fact that certain submissions as to costs were not made before the Tribunal.