MDF v Mental Health Review Tribunal (No 2)

The applicant, MDF, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal had determined that MDF, who had been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility, did not meet the criteria for discharge. The High Court of Australia was the forum for this judicial review. MDF argued that the Tribunal's decision was flawed on several grounds, including procedural errors and an incorrect application of the law.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should apply in this instance, given that MDF was entirely unsuccessful in their application for judicial review. The Court had to consider whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify deviating from this standard practice. The Court noted that the general rule is not absolute and may be departed from if there are special reasons to do so. However, in this case, the Court found that no such exceptional circumstances existed.

In reaching its decision, the Court emphasised the importance of the general rule in ensuring that unsuccessful applicants do not avoid the financial consequences of their litigation choices. The Court found that MDF's application was not only unsuccessful but also lacked merit, and therefore, it was appropriate for costs to follow the event. The Court ordered that MDF pay the Tribunal's costs on a standard basis, reflecting the ordinary costs incurred by the successful party in defending the judicial review application.

This decision reinforces the principle that, in the absence of special circumstances, costs should follow the event in judicial review proceedings, even when the applicant is entirely unsuccessful. The Court's ruling provides clarity for future litigants regarding the financial implications of unsuccessful applications for judicial review.