McQueen v Parole Board Queensland

In the case of McQueen v Parole Board Queensland, the applicant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to cancel his parole. The applicant successfully applied to the Queensland Supreme Court to set aside the decision and have it remade according to law. The costs of the adjourned hearing were reserved by consent. The respondent argued that the adjournment was due to complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity over certain materials. The respondent contended that the applicant did not succeed on the concerns regarding the public interest immunity claims. The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to their standard costs for the application.

The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the standard costs of the application, given the successful outcome. The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the successful party is generally entitled to their costs. However, the court also had to consider the circumstances of the adjourned hearing and the complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity. The court had to balance the successful outcome of the application with the conduct of the applicant during the hearing.

The court found that despite the successful outcome of the application, the applicant's conduct during the hearing warranted a departure from the general rule of costs following the event. The court held that the adjournment of the hearing and the complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity did not warrant an award of standard costs to the applicant. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

This decision highlights the importance of considering the conduct of parties during judicial review proceedings, even in cases where the ultimate outcome is successful for the applicant. The court's decision to depart from the general rule of costs following the event in this case demonstrates the need for careful consideration of the circumstances of each case.