FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SS v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 760
COSTS – which party should bear costs in relation to a withdrawn application to re-open – circumstances of the case – application to re-open based on first respondent’s late production of relevant documents – decision to withdraw application based on objection by applicant – whether such circumstances warranted costs order in either party’s favour
COSTS – costs of applicant’s notice of motion to be granted leave to make further submissions – circumstances of the case – whether costs order in applicant’s favour appropriate
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)
SS v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 580
SS v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION and JEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON
NSD 50 of 2009
JAGOT J
17 JULY 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 50 of 2009
BETWEEN: SS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First RespondentJEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JULY 2009
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Each party is to pay its own costs of preparation for and the hearing between 11.30 am and 12.45 pm on 24 April 2009 with respect to the first respondent’s (withdrawn) application for leave to re-open.
2.The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the applicant’s notice of motion filed 25 May 2009 and heard on 29 May 2009, as agreed or taxed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 50 of 2009
BETWEEN: SS
Applicant
AND: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First RespondentJEFFREY PHILIP ANDERSON
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
JAGOT J
DATE:
17 JULY 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 29 May 2009 I made orders consequential on my decision in SS v Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCA 580 dismissing an application to set aside certain determinations made and a summons issued under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (the ACC Act).
I made the following orders with respect to the costs of the proceeding:
…
2.Subject to order 3 below, the applicant pay the respondents’ costs, as agreed or taxed.
3.Reserve the applicant’s costs of preparation for and the hearing between 11.30 am and 12.45 pm on 24 April 2009 with respect to the first respondent’s (withdrawn) application for leave to re-open and reserve the costs of the applicant’s notice of motion filed 25 May 2009 and heard on 29 May 2009.
The parties requested that I determine the outstanding costs issues by reference to their written submissions.
The first respondent (the ACC) noted in its submissions that during the course of the hearing I in fact indicated that three issues of costs would be reserved. The order I made on 29 May 2009 omitted reference to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read SS v Australian Crime Commission (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] FCA 760
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the decision-making process of the Australian Crime Commission complied with the principles of natural justice, specifically whether SS was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedy for any breach of natural justice that might have occurred.
The court determined that there was indeed a breach of natural justice in the way the decision was made. However, it found that the breach did not result in a materially unfair outcome for the applicant. The court emphasised that procedural fairness is essential but held that the nature of the breach in this case did not affect the fairness of the final decision. Consequently, the applicant's appeal was dismissed. The court also ordered that each party bear its own costs for the hearing in question, and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs related to a specific notice of motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Each party is to pay its own costs of preparation for and the hearing between 11.30 am and 12.45 pm on 24 April 2009 with respect to the first respondent’s (withdrawn) application for leave to re-open.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs of the applicant’s notice of motion filed 25 May 2009 and heard on 29 May 2009, as agreed or taxed.
Note:
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
Established by: JAGOT J
Full text does not contain this section.