Zakaria (as Tutor for SA) v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 2)

In the case of Zakaria (as Tutor for SA) v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 2), the Court was presented with an application for costs following the dismissal of a summons. The plaintiff, Zakaria, acting as tutor for SA, sought to challenge the decision of the New South Wales Crime Commission, arguing that the summons should be dismissed with costs. Zakaria contended that the general issue of importance and alleged misconduct by the defendant warranted a departure from the usual order of costs following the event. The Court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's arguments justified a deviation from the standard practice of awarding costs to the prevailing party.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the circumstances of the case warranted an exceptional order regarding the allocation of costs. Zakaria argued that the general issue of importance and the alleged misconduct of the defendant provided grounds for a departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event. The Court had to assess whether these arguments were sufficient to justify an exercise of discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also needed to consider the principle that costs generally follow the event, which is a well-established rule in administrative law.

The Court found that Zakaria's arguments for an exceptional order did not meet the necessary criteria. The Court concluded that the general issue of importance did not provide a sufficient basis to depart from the usual rule of costs. Furthermore, the alleged misconduct of the defendant was not substantiated in a manner that would justify an exceptional order. As such, the Court determined that there was no good reason to exercise discretion in a manner other than the ordinary course, which is for costs to follow the event. Accordingly, the Court held that costs should be awarded to the defendant, in line with the established practice in administrative law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed Zakaria's application for costs and ordered that costs be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The Court's decision was based on the finding that the arguments presented did not justify a departure from the standard rule that costs follow the event. This decision reinforces the principle that costs are generally awarded to the prevailing party unless exceptional circumstances warrant a different outcome.