Ritson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (No 2)

In the matter of Ritson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (No 2), the primary concern was the fixing of costs and the application of set-off against costs orders in other proceedings. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to make a lump sum costs order in a particular amount, if the set-off against a costs order in favour of the respondent in other proceedings was appropriate, and if there was a disqualifying delay in seeking the set-off. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the set-off may amount to a preferential payment if bankruptcy proceedings were commenced by the respondent against the applicant, and against which costs order in favour of the respondent the set-off order should be made.

The court reasoned that it was appropriate to make a lump sum costs order in the amount of $5,190 in favour of Ritson, subject to any refund of his filing fees in the present proceedings. The court also concluded that it was appropriate to set off the whole of Ritson’s costs against the costs ordered by Garling J on 21 December 2018, which had been made in the amount of $6,000. The court held that the applicant was prohibited from taking any steps to enforce Ritson’s costs against the respondent, and the respondent was prohibited from enforcing the costs orders made by Garling J up to the amount of Ritson’s costs. The court found that there was no disqualifying delay in seeking the set-off, and that the set-off would not amount to a preferential payment if bankruptcy proceedings were commenced by the respondent against the applicant.

The court made several orders, including fixing the costs in the amount of $5,190, subject to any refund of Ritson's filing fees. The court also ordered that Ritson’s costs be set off against the costs ordered by Garling J on 21 December 2018. Additionally, the court prohibited the applicant from taking any steps to enforce Ritson’s costs against the respondent, and the respondent from enforcing the costs orders made by Garling J up to the amount of Ritson’s costs. The court dismissed the interlocutory applications filed by both parties and ordered that each party pay their own costs of those applications.