Moore v AI Automotive Pty Ltd

This case concerned an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia. At trial, the respondent, AI Automotive Pty Ltd, was found guilty of three offences under the *Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986* (SA). Following convictions and the imposition of fines, the prosecutor applied for an order for costs. The Industrial Magistrate awarded the prosecutor $89,000 in costs, departing from the usual scale, citing the case's difficulty, complexity, seriousness, length, and the technical nature of the evidence. AI Automotive appealed this costs order.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court was whether the Industrial Magistrate had erred in exercising their discretion to award costs. Specifically, the majority of the Full Court considered whether the Magistrate had failed to take into account relevant factors when determining the quantum of the costs awarded, leading to a miscarriage of discretion. The dissenting judge, however, found no error in the Magistrate's decision to depart from the scale and in the subsequent calculation of the costs.

The Supreme Court of South Australia, in allowing the appeal, adopted the reasoning of the dissenting judge of the Full Court. The Court held that the Industrial Magistrate was justified in departing from the scale of costs due to the particular difficulty, complexity, and seriousness of the case. Once the decision to depart from the scale was made, the Magistrate's subsequent exercise of discretion in calculating the costs, based on work actually done and reasonable rates, was not found to contain any error. The Court concluded that there was no warrant for interference with the Magistrate's original costs order on appeal.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court that had remitted the costs for rehearing, and substituted an order dismissing the appeal to that Court. This meant the original costs order of $89,000 in favour of the prosecutor was reinstated.