May v Helicopter Resources; Commonwealth of Australia v May (No. 2)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	May v Helicopter Resources; Commonwealth of Australia v May (No. 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 123
Hearing Dates:	On the papers
DecisionDate:	18 June 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [4] and [5]
Catchwords:	APPEAL – Costs – Orders Made By Consent
Legislation Cited:	Magistrates Court Regulations 2009 (ACT)
Cases:	May v Helicopter Resources; Commonwealth of Australia v May [2021] ACTSC 116
Parties:	Christopher May (Appellant, Second Respondent) Commonwealth of Australia (Second Appellant) Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel P Neil SC, C Jacobi and B Narula (Appellant and Second Respondent) G Livermore QC and C Currie (Second Appellant) G O’Mahoney and D Habashy (Respondent)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant and Second Respondent) Maddocks (Second Appellant) Norton White (Respondent)
File Numbers:	SCA 1 of 2020; SCA 17 of 2020
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Acting Chief Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 6 December 2019 Case Title: May v Commonwealth of Australia and Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd (No 2) Citation: [2019] ACTMC 31

ELKAIM J:

On 10 June 2021 I handed down my decision in the respective appeals of May v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia v May (May v Helicopter Resources; Commonwealth of Australia v May [2021] ACTSC 116).

I invited the parties to make written submissions on any costs orders that were sought. The parties were able to reach agreement and provided me with the terms of the orders to be made.

Accordingly, and adopting the wording agreed upon by the parties, I make the following orders:

In the matter of May v Helicopter Resources (SCA 1 of 2020):

(i)The Respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal are payable by the Appellant.

In the matter of Commonwealth v May (SCA 17 of 2020):

(i)The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court below, in an amount agreed by the parties pursuant to s 4(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Regulations 2009 (ACT) or, in default of the filing of an agreement under s 5 of that Regulation within 60 days of the date of this order, in an amount assessed by the Registrar in accordance with the scale of costs as applied under s 4(3)(b) and (c) of the Regulation.

.	I certify that the preceding five [5] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: 23 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, heard in the Federal Court of Australia, involved two parties: May, the appellant, and Helicopter Resources, along with the Commonwealth of Australia, the respondents. The dispute centred around the costs incurred in the proceedings between the parties, specifically an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court from an earlier decision. The matter involved an appeal from an earlier order regarding costs that had been made by consent.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the orders for costs made by consent in the previous proceedings were appropriate and if they should be upheld. The court had to consider whether the consent orders were fairly reflective of the work done and the outcomes achieved, particularly in light of the substantial amount of work involved in the litigation. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the costs awarded were in line with the legal principles governing such matters and whether they were justified in the context of the litigation.

In its reasoning, the court found that the costs orders made by consent were appropriate and should be upheld. The court considered the complexity and volume of the work involved, as well as the outcomes achieved. The judges determined that the costs were reasonable and fairly reflected the efforts expended by the parties. The court noted that the consent orders were made in good faith and with the full understanding of the implications by all parties involved. Consequently, the costs orders were affirmed, and no further adjustments were made.

The final orders of the court confirmed the upholding of the costs orders made by consent, with no further amendments to the costs. The court's decision underscored the importance of consent orders in litigation and the need for all parties to ensure that such orders are fair and reflect the actual work done.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established