Monck v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)

In Monck v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2), the plaintiff, Monck, sought to challenge the legality of certain actions taken by the Commonwealth. The dispute centred around the principles governing the allocation of costs in legal proceedings. Following the dismissal of Monck's claims at first instance and the subsequent dismissal of his application for leave to appeal, the Commonwealth applied for costs in accordance with the general rule that costs follow the event.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Commonwealth, as the successful party, was entitled to recover its costs from Monck. The court had to consider whether Monck's financial incapacity alone was sufficient to justify denying the Commonwealth its costs or if additional factors were required. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the Commonwealth's status as a body politic affected the application of the general rule.

The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event applies unless there are exceptional circumstances. It was found that Monck's impecuniosity, standing alone, did not justify denying the Commonwealth its costs. The court emphasised that the Commonwealth's status as a body politic did not exempt it from the application of the basic principle of costs allocation. Therefore, the court awarded costs to the Commonwealth for both the proceedings at first instance and the application for leave to appeal. The orders specified that Monck was to pay the Commonwealth's costs of and incidental to the proceedings at first instance and the application for leave to appeal.