Karamaroudis v Queensland Police Service

In the matter of Karamaroudis v Queensland Police Service, the applicant sought re-hearing of a partially heard committal hearing from the Magistrates Court, which was to be conducted in the Supreme Court. The applicant also sought leave to cross-examine three witnesses at the committal hearing, alleging apprehended and actual bias on the part of the magistrate. The application was dismissed, and the matter was adjourned for costs. The first respondent, the Queensland Police Service, opposed the applicant’s application for costs. The legal issue before the court was whether the costs should be decided in accordance with the general rule or if there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from that rule.

The court considered the general principle that costs follow the event, meaning that the unsuccessful party generally pays the costs of the successful party. However, the court also noted that there are exceptions to this rule, such as where a party has acted vexatiously, unreasonably, or oppressively, or where there are other special circumstances. In this case, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a departure from the general rule. The applicant had not succeeded in any of their applications, and the court found that the application for leave to cross-examine the witnesses was not reasonably arguable. The court also noted that the application for re-hearing of the committal hearing was an unusual and complex application, and the applicant had not provided any compelling reasons why costs should not follow the event.

As a result, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, including any reserved costs, to be assessed on a standard basis. The court found that the general rule was applicable in this case, and there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from that rule. The applicant's applications were not successful, and the court found no merit in the applicant's allegations of bias against the magistrate. Therefore, the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent. This decision reinforces the principle that costs generally follow the event in civil proceedings and that there must be compelling reasons for the court to depart from this rule.