DPP v Le (No 2)

[2007] VSCA 57

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Statutory limitation on costs power
4. › Whether specific costs provision in Confiscation Act 1997 constitutes exhaustive code displacing general costs power
5. › Whether omission of certain proceedings from costs provision implies prohibition on costs orders in those proceedings
6. › Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic), s 133A
7. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 24(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of costs provisions
3. › Whether specific costs provision impliedly excludes general costs power
4. › Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
5. › Whether omissions in poorly drafted legislation give rise to necessary implication of exclusion
6. › Rose v Hvric (1963) 108 CLR 353

Quick Take

Section 133A of the Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic) does not displace the general costs power under s 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) in relation to types of confiscation proceedings not mentioned in s 133A(2) and (3), including appeals. A successful party in such proceedings may obtain a costs order under the general power.

Case Details

Citation[2007] VSCA 57

CourtVSCA

JurisdictionVictoria

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by6

2018Coleman v DPP (No 2)VSCA 282
2012The Queen v PayaraVSCA 266
2009Bow Ye Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v DPP & Ors (No 2)VSCA 278
and 3 more after sign-in

Relies on2

1963Rose v HvricHCA 13
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in