Peden v Boxx (No 2) - [2016] ACTSC 110

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Peden v Boxx (No 2)
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 110
Date Last Submissions Received:	25 May 2016
DecisionDate:	6 June 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and of the appeal in this Court.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – Costs – costs order made in appellate proceedings from Magistrates Court – order that unsuccessful party pay costs of the appeal – where costs order made against the Director of Public Prosecutions – whether Court has power to award costs to a successful appellant in an appeal from Magistrates Court – statutory basis for costs order – costs awarded.
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) ss 134, 139 Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 1721, 5001 Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (No 4) (ACT) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 23 Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1890 (53 and 54 Vic c 44) ss 4, 5
Cases Cited:	Byrnes v Barry (2004) 150 A Crim R 471 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Peden v Boxx [2016] ACTSC 86 Walsh v Law Society of New South Wales (1999) 198 CLR 73
Parties:	Aaron Glen Peden (Appellant) Caleb Boxx (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Whybrow (Appellant) Mr T Buckingham (Respondent)
Solicitors Ben Aulich & Associates (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 30 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Hunter Date of Decision: 21 May 2015 Case Title: Boxx v Peden Court File Number: CC14/09142

BURNS J:

On 10 May 2016, I upheld the appellant’s appeal, set aside the finding of guilt made by the Magistrate, and dismissed the charge against the appellant on the ground that it did not allege an offence known to law: Peden v Boxx [2016] ACTSC 86. At the same time I made an order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court, unless either party sought a different costs order within 14 days. I subsequently received written submissions by the respondent within that 14 day time period. The appellant indicated via email to my Associate that there was no reason for me to interfere with the orders I made on 10 May 2016 and did not seek to put forward any substantive written submissions. I informed the parties that I was content to deal with the issue on the material that had been provided to me and reserved my decision in relation to costs. This is that decision.

The respondent’s submissions

The respondent takes no issue with my order that he pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court, but submits that I have no power to order him to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. In brief, the respondent submits that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to the making of a costs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peden v Boxx (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Peden v Boxx (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 110
Case: [2016] ACTSC 110
Decision Date: 6 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court of Appeal was between the appellant, Peden, and the respondent, Boxx. The dispute arose from an initial decision made in the Magistrates Court, which was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. The crux of the matter revolved around the entitlement to costs incurred during both the original proceedings and the appellate process. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether it had the authority to order the unsuccessful party to cover the costs of the appeal when such an order had been made against the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Magistrates Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the scope of its authority to award costs to a successful appellant in an appeal from the Magistrates Court. Specifically, the Court had to ascertain whether the statutory framework empowered it to make such an order, especially when the initial costs order was against a different party, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Court needed to balance the statutory provisions governing costs in appellate proceedings with the principles of fairness and justice that underpin the legal system.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that it did possess the statutory authority to order the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of both the Magistrates Court proceedings and the appeal. The Court found that the relevant statutes did not restrict its power to make such an order, provided that the circumstances warranted it. The Court emphasised that the ability to award costs in appellate proceedings was a matter of statutory interpretation and that the provisions were broad enough to encompass the scenario at hand. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant’s costs, both at the Magistrates Court level and in the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and of the appeal in this Court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.