Ruzehaji v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2)

This matter concerned an application for costs following unsuccessful appeals and an application for judicial review brought by the appellants, Amir Sabit Ruzehaji and Ruzehaji Enterprises Pty Ltd, against the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The proceedings originated from orders made by the District Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), which included the Official Trustee taking possession of a motor vehicle, an examination order, and restraining orders. The first appellant had also been charged with criminal offences.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the appellants' appeals and application for judicial review should succeed, and consequently, how the costs of these proceedings should be ordered. The appellants had sought to set aside an examination order or stay the proceeds of crime proceedings pending the determination of the criminal proceedings against the first appellant. A key consideration in the original application and on appeal was the prejudice the first appellant might suffer if examination proceedings proceeded concurrently with criminal proceedings, and the efficacy of an undertaking offered by the respondent.

The Court dismissed the appeals and the application for judicial review. While acknowledging that the matter raised issues of public importance, the Court determined that this did not justify a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The Court reasoned that the appellants were unsuccessful in their substantive arguments, including a constitutional challenge to the Proceeds of Crime Act and complaints about the initial ex parte orders. The respondent's undertaking regarding the scope of the examination was considered a significant factor in addressing concerns about prejudice.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the respondent have its costs of the appeal, to be taxed or agreed on a party and party basis.