Ly v Jenkins

Case [2001] FCA 1640

Ly v Jenkins [2001] FCA 1640
Jurisdiction - Constitutional law - Costs

Ly v Jenkins [2001] FCA 1640

JURISDICTION - Conferral of jurisdiction on State courts to hear and determine summary offences created by a Commonwealth Law- whether New South Wales Local Court has jurisdiction to convict and impose penalties for an offence under s 132(2A) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) - whether ss 39(2) and 68(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) only confer jurisdiction on State courts which have an existing and like jurisdiction in respect of summary offences under State law - whether the maximum term of imprisonment for breach of the section is 5 years - whether statutory limit on the jurisdiction of New South Wales Local Court to sentence offenders to terms of imprisonment.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Whether s 80 of the Constitution provides a guarantee that a `serious' offence against a law of the Commonwealth will be tried before a jury - whether trial upon indictment was not specified in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)-whether the appellants pleaded guilty to the offence charged.

COSTS - scope of power to order costs under s 81 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) - whether costs can be awarded to a legally unqualified police prosecutor -whether costs can be awarded for the investigation or proof of the case - whether a costs order can only be made in respect of costs incurred by the prosecuting authority - whether costs incurred "in - house" by a corporation are professional costs - whether costs order can be made in US dollars - whether statutory test that costs be just and reasonable applied.

WORDS AND PHRASES - "within the limits of their several jurisdictions"; "the like jurisdiction"

WORDS AND PHRASES - "costs"

STATUTES

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15C

Bail Act 1978 (NSW) s 51

Constitution s 80

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) ss 131B(2)(a), 132(2A)(a), 132(6A), 133

Courts Legislation Amendment Act (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 440, 444(4)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 58

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 33J

Crimes Act 1900 (Cth) ss 4AA, 4J(1)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39(2), 68(2), 78A, 78B

Justices Act 1850 (SA) s 10

Justices Act 1902 (NSW) ss 52 & 81

Justices Act 1928 (Vic) s 210

Local Courts Act (NSW) ss 4 & 7

Public Service Act 1922 (Cth) s 64

Punishment of Offenders Act 1901 (Cth) ss 2, 3

Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967 (NSW) s 3

Quick J & Garran RR The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901)

Cowen Z & Zines L Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (1978)

CASES

Adams v Chas S Watson Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 545 Referred to

Adams v Cleeve (1935) 53 CLR 185 Referred to

Associated Octel Ltd [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 435 Referred to

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Cawood [1987] 1 Qd R 131 Referred to

Bank…

Continue reading Ly v Jenkins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ly v Jenkins [2001] FCA 1640
Case
[2001] FCA 1640
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ly v Jenkins, the appellants, Ly and another, challenged the costs orders made against them by the Local Court at Burwood. The dispute centred around the appropriateness of the costs orders issued against the appellants in relation to proceedings that had been brought to a conclusion. The District Court of New South Wales was tasked with reviewing the merits of the decision made by the Local Court.

The primary legal issue before the District Court was whether the Local Court had erred in its assessment of the costs orders, specifically whether the Local Court had misapplied the relevant statutory provisions and principles governing the award of costs in civil proceedings. The court was required to determine if the Local Court had acted outside its jurisdiction or made an error of law that warranted the setting aside of the costs orders.

The District Court found that the Local Court had indeed erred in its application of the statutory provisions and legal principles. The court held that the Local Court had not adequately considered the specific circumstances of the case and had misapplied the law in its determination of the costs orders. Consequently, the District Court set aside the costs orders made by the Local Court and remitted the matter back for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects.

The court's orders included setting aside the costs orders made by the Local Court on 19 July 2000, remitting the matter back to the Local Court for a reassessment of the appropriate costs orders, and dismissing the appeal in all other respects. The appellants were thus granted relief in part, but the overall appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The costs orders made by the Local Court at Burwood on 19 July 2000 against each of the appellants be set aside.

2. The proceedings be remitted to the learned Magistrate for the purposes of determining consistently with the reasons of the Court, what, if any, orders for costs should be made against the appellants.

3. The appeal be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.