Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission - [2004] QSC 306

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sharples v Crime & Misconduct Commission & Ors [2004] QSC 306

PARTIES:

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES
(applicant)
v
CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD)
(first respondent)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) STEPHEN LAMBRIDES
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

SC No 1755 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Costs Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

1. The applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney-General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the Applications to dismiss the application) on the standard basis to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – OTHER CASES – where financial resources of applicant limited – where no effect on public interest – where no reasonable basis for the review – where another remedy is available – whether balance of factors persuades Court to vary general rule that costs follow the event

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48(1), s 49(1), s 49(1)(d), s 49(1)(e), s 49(2)

Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Ors [2004] QSC 162; SC No 1755 of 2004, 28 May 2004, cited
Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Ors [2004] QCA 247; SC No 5597 of 2004, 21 July 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
A J Rafter SC for the first and second respondents
B Thomas for the Attorney-General

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Official Solicitor for the Crime and Misconduct Commission for the first and second respondents
Crown Law for the Attorney-General

MACKENZIE J: The applicant’s application for judicial review and other forms of relief was summarily dismissed on 28 May 2004. On 21 July 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against that decision.

The applicant made a “costs application” under s 49 on 26 March 2004, prior to the hearing in the Trial Division. Both forms of cost order were sought, as alternatives. Section 49(1) firstly empowers the court to make an order that another party indemnify the applicant in relation to costs. The order has operation from the time the costs application is made (s 49(1)(d)). Secondly, it empowers the court to make an order that a party is to bear only his own costs (s 49(1)(e)).

Section 49(2) requires the court to have regard to three matters, where the applicant is also the applicant in the costs application. It is assumed for the purposes of argument, may not be the case, that where other forms of relief are joined in an application for judicial review, a costs application may be made in respect of all costs. One of the matters to be taken into account under s 49(2) is the financial resources of the applicant or a person associated with him who has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QSC 306
Decision Date: 17 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission, the applicant sought to challenge the decision of the Commission not to proceed with a hearing. The respondents included the Commission, its President, and several others. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, where the primary issue was whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be departed from in this instance. The applicant's financial resources were limited, and there was no effect on the public interest, nor was there any reasonable basis for the review. Additionally, another remedy was available to the applicant.

The court considered the balance of factors, including the applicant's limited financial resources, the absence of any impact on the public interest, the lack of a reasonable basis for the review, and the availability of an alternative remedy. The court acknowledged that in exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. However, the court found that in this case, the balance of factors did not persuade it to vary the general rule. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the costs of litigation do not unduly burden a party, but also recognised the need to maintain the principle that costs follow the event unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

The court ordered that the applicant for the application pay the costs of and incidental to the application, including the applications to dismiss the application, on the standard basis to be assessed. This decision highlights the importance of considering the balance of factors when deciding whether to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. While the court recognised the exceptional circumstances in this case, it ultimately determined that they did not justify a departure from the general rule. The decision also underscores the importance of ensuring that the costs of litigation do not unduly burden a party, while at the same time maintaining the principle that costs follow the event unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney-General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the Applications to dismiss the application) on the standard basis to be assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Sharples v Crime & Misconduct Commission & Ors [2004] QSC 306
PARTIES:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES (applicant) v CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) (first respondent) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF MISCONDUCT, CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMISSION (QLD) STEPHEN LAMBRIDES (second respondent)
FILE NO:	SC No 1755 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Costs Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	1. The applicant for the Application pay the first to fourth respondents’ and the Attorney-General’s costs of and incidental to the Application (including the Applications to dismiss the application) on the standard basis to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – OTHER CASES – OTHER CASES – where financial resources of applicant limited – where no effect on public interest – where no reasonable basis for the review – where another remedy is available – whether balance of factors persuades Court to vary general rule that costs follow the event Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 48(1), s 49(1), s 49(1)(d), s 49(1)(e), s 49(2) Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Ors [2004] QSC 162; SC No 1755 of 2004, 28 May 2004, cited Sharples v Crime and Misconduct Commission (Qld) & Ors [2004] QCA 247; SC No 5597 of 2004, 21 July 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf A J Rafter SC for the first and second respondents B Thomas for the Attorney-General
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf Official Solicitor for the Crime and Misconduct Commission for the first and second respondents Crown Law for the Attorney-General