Quinn v Law Institute of Victoria Limited (No 2)

[2007] VSCA 132

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeals from tribunals
4. › Regulatory body as respondent
5. › Whether respondent appeared as amicus curiae or protagonist
6. › Whether exceptional circumstances required for costs order
7. › Whether error of law induced by respondent relevant
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Usual order as to costs
4. › Successful party entitled to costs
5. › Disentitling conduct as exception
6. › No disentitling circumstances found
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Regulatory agencies as respondents to appeals on questions of law
4. › Costs risk of contesting appeal
5. › Distinction between tribunal and party appearing before tribunal
6. › Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic), s 162

Quick Take

A regulatory body that contests an appeal on a question of law from a tribunal decision runs the usual costs risk and will be ordered to pay the successful appellant's costs. The body's public interest function does not insulate it from costs on appeal. The principle that costs should not be awarded against a statutory tribunal does not apply to a regulatory body that appears as a party before the tribunal. Whether the tribunal's error was induced by the respondent is irrelevant to the costs question.