Paterson v MacPherson; Zacharakis v MacPherson (No 2)

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered applications for costs following earlier proceedings in *Paterson v MacPherson* and *Zacharakis v MacPherson*. The underlying dispute involved judicial review proceedings concerning decisions made by the respondent, MacPherson, in his capacity as the Registrar of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). The applicants, Paterson and Zacharakis, sought orders for costs against the respondent.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the respondent, as a public official acting in his official capacity, should be ordered to pay the costs of the judicial review proceedings. This required the Court to consider the general rule that costs follow the event and the exceptions to this rule, particularly in the context of public officials and administrative law. The Court also had to determine whether the respondent's conduct in the proceedings warranted a departure from the usual cost orders.

The Court reasoned that while the general rule is that costs follow the event, there are established exceptions, particularly where a public official is involved in litigation in their official capacity. The Court noted that such officials are generally not ordered to pay costs unless they have acted unreasonably or vexatiously. In this instance, the Court found no evidence that the respondent had acted in such a manner. The respondent had defended the proceedings in good faith, and the issues raised were of public importance. Therefore, the Court concluded that the general rule should not apply, and each party should bear their own costs.

Accordingly, the Full Court ordered that there be no order as to costs, meaning each party was to bear their own legal expenses.