Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2)
Case
•
[2016] QSC 284
•5 December 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2016] QSC 284
[2016] QSC 284
5 December 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2), the applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The applicant, who had limited financial resources, argued that the decisions to no longer deal with his complaint about an unlawful operator and to dismiss his complaint about the conduct of an Australian legal practitioner were subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The court was required to decide whether the applicant should bear his own costs under s 49 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).
The court considered several factors in its reasoning. Firstly, the applicant's financial resources were limited, as evidenced by the reduction of the filing fee granted to him. Secondly, the proceeding involved an issue that affected or may affect the public interest, specifically the relevant limits to the operation of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) as a basis for review of decisions made by the respondent under either ss 446 or 448 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). Lastly, there was a reasonable basis for the argument as to the application of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to the decisions in question, which was the subject of argument before the court.
The court concluded that, pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), the applicant should bear only his own costs of the proceeding. The court held that the financial resources of the applicant and the public interest in the issue were relevant considerations under s 49(2) of the Act. The court further held that the ordinary rule in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that costs follow the event is "subject to" s 49, as expressly provided in s 49(4). The respondent's submissions that the proceeding was not one to which s 49(1)(e) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) was directed, and that the application was a proceeding in the applicant's own personal interests, were not accepted by the court.
ORDERS:
The applicant is to bear only the applicant's costs of the proceeding.
The court considered several factors in its reasoning. Firstly, the applicant's financial resources were limited, as evidenced by the reduction of the filing fee granted to him. Secondly, the proceeding involved an issue that affected or may affect the public interest, specifically the relevant limits to the operation of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) as a basis for review of decisions made by the respondent under either ss 446 or 448 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). Lastly, there was a reasonable basis for the argument as to the application of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to the decisions in question, which was the subject of argument before the court.
The court concluded that, pursuant to s 49 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), the applicant should bear only his own costs of the proceeding. The court held that the financial resources of the applicant and the public interest in the issue were relevant considerations under s 49(2) of the Act. The court further held that the ordinary rule in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that costs follow the event is "subject to" s 49, as expressly provided in s 49(4). The respondent's submissions that the proceeding was not one to which s 49(1)(e) of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) was directed, and that the application was a proceeding in the applicant's own personal interests, were not accepted by the court.
ORDERS:
The applicant is to bear only the applicant's costs of the proceeding.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Costs
-
Public Interest
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner
[2016] QSC 174
Foster v Shaddock
[2016] QCA 163
Murphy v Legal Services Commissioner
[2013] QSC 70