Costs may be awarded against an inferior court where there is a clear case of serious misconduct — misconduct of such a nature as to justify an award of costs — and the categories of such misconduct are not exhaustive. The English test (a flagrant instance of improper conduct) and the New South Wales formulation (a clear case of serious misconduct) are equivalent. Statutory provisions conferring on magistrates the same protection and immunity as Supreme Court judges do not preclude costs orders. A magistrate's abuse of the contempt power to silence an advocate making a proper disqualification application constitutes serious misconduct justifying costs.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.