Lewis v Chief Executive Department of Justice and Community Safety (No 2)

The case of Lewis v Chief Executive Department of Justice and Community Safety (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Steven James Lewis, seeking judicial review of a decision by the defendant, the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. The primary issue in the case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs, given that his claim was only partially successful. The dispute was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court included whether the usual rule that costs follow the event applied, whether exceptions to this rule could be invoked, and how the costs should be apportioned given the partial success of the plaintiff's claims. The court had to consider the principles of judicial discretion in awarding costs and the appropriate method for apportionment, including whether a percentage-based approach was suitable. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of a Calderbank letter in the context of costs allocation.

In its decision, the court held that the ordinary rule regarding costs did not apply in this instance due to the partial success of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that a "head count" of issues was not appropriate for apportioning costs and instead favoured a percentage-based approach, though it acknowledged that this could not be done with mathematical precision. The court determined that the plaintiff should be awarded costs on the issues where he was successful and that the same decision being made by the decision-maker did not render the judicial review futile. Accordingly, the court apportioned costs, ordering the defendants to pay thirty-five percent of the plaintiff's costs on a party and party basis.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants pay thirty-five percent of the plaintiff's costs on a party and party basis. This apportionment recognised the partial success of the plaintiff's claims while ensuring that the defendants contributed appropriately to the overall costs incurred in the proceedings.