Norbett Olaf Detlef Tenthy v Neville Charles Curtis, Charles Reuben Curtis and Jonathon Clair Curtis

[1988] NTSC 45

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Court of Summary Jurisdiction
4. › Discretion as to award of costs
5. › Whether guiding principle that costs generally follow the event
6. › Whether distinction between complainants who are police officers and other complainants
7. › Application of guiding principle where charge proved but complaint dismissed as trivial
8. › Justices Act 1928 (NT), ss 75(2), 77(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Specific provision and general provision
3. › Whether specific costs provision in s 75(2)(a) overrides general costs provision in s 77(1)
4. › Whether 'order of dismissal' in s 77(1) encompasses dismissal of charge found proved but trivial under s 75(2)(a)
5. › Justices Act 1928 (NT), ss 75(2)(a), 77(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Precedent
3. › Stare decisis
4. › Whether decision of Full Court of Federal Court binding authority after court ceased to be court of appeal
5. › Whether that question a matter for Court of Appeal to decide as judicial policy

Quick Take

In the Northern Territory, the discretion to award costs under s.77(1) of the Justices Act is to be exercised on the same principles as in civil proceedings, with costs generally following the event. No distinction is drawn between police and other complainants. A defendant whose charge is dismissed under s.75(2)(a) (charge proved but trivial) is a 'successful party' entitled to costs unless reasons exist to deprive them. However, costs attributable to a defendant's erroneous reliance on an unavailable defence are not 'reasonably incurred' and may be deducted.