Loielo v Giles (No 2)

The case of Loielo v Giles (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Loielo, challenging a curfew direction issued by the defendant, Giles, the Chief Health Officer of New South Wales, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The dispute was heard and decided in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff argued that the curfew direction was unlawful and sought various remedies, including a declaration that the direction was invalid and an order quashing it. The defendant maintained that the direction was a lawful exercise of powers under the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW).

The central legal issues before the court were whether the curfew direction was lawful and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff succeeded on any issues, the amount of time spent on those issues, and the significance of the issues in the context of the case as a whole. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff's challenge was frivolous or vexatious and whether it was in the public interest to award costs to the defendant.

The court found that the curfew direction was lawful and dismissed the plaintiff's challenge. The court held that the Chief Health Officer had acted within the scope of his powers under the Public Health Act and that the direction was a reasonable and proportionate measure in response to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that the plaintiff had not succeeded on any of the issues raised in the proceedings and that the case involved significant public interest considerations. The court further held that it was not in the public interest to award costs to either party and that both parties should bear their own costs. The court found that the plaintiff's challenge was not frivolous or vexatious, but that the issues raised were not of significant importance in the context of the case as a whole.

The court made an order that both parties bear their own costs of the proceedings. This decision highlights the importance of considering the success of parties on issues, the time spent on those issues, and the significance of the issues in determining whether to award costs in a case involving public interest considerations. The court's decision also emphasises the need for careful consideration of the public interest when deciding whether to award costs in cases involving challenges to government actions during a public health emergency.