Weinstein v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (No 2)

[2008] VSCA 224

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeal dismissed
4. › Whether departure from usual costs order
5. › Whether successful argument raised before judge at first instance
6. › Whether appeal initiated in the public interest
7. › Appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of appeal

Quick Take

The fact that a court's decision on statutory interpretation has implications beyond the immediate parties does not, of itself, justify departing from the usual costs order. Oshlack v Richmond River Council does not support the proposition that where litigation has some element of public interest, the court should refuse to order costs in favour of a successful party. An appeal initiated to protect the appellant's personal interests is not an appeal initiated in the public interest, even if it incidentally raises questions of statutory interpretation.