Lourey v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

[2012] WASCA 112

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Disciplinary proceedings
4. › Vocational regulatory body
5. › Whether costs should be awarded against unsuccessful regulatory body
6. › Ordinary practice that costs not awarded unless application lacked reasonable basis or not made in good faith
7. › Whether Tribunal fettered its discretion
8. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 87(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Right to be heard
4. › Costs decision
5. › Whether Tribunal required to afford further hearing on costs after publishing substantive reasons
6. › Whether practical injustice occurred
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32(1)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Reasons for decision
4. › Non-final reserved decisions
5. › Whether obligation to give reasons for costs decision
6. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), ss 76, 77, 78
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Discretionary decisions
4. › Appellate review of discretionary judgments
5. › Whether decision so unreasonable no reasonable tribunal could have made it
6. › Analogy between judicial review and appellate review of discretion

Quick Take

In vocational regulatory proceedings before the SAT, the ordinary practice is that costs will not be awarded against a regulatory body unless the application lacked any reasonable basis or was not made in good faith. A successful respondent who has already made submissions on costs in closing submissions is not entitled to a further hearing on costs after the Tribunal publishes its substantive reasons, particularly where the Tribunal's findings are contrary to the basis on which costs were sought. Even if procedural fairness is denied in relation to a costs decision, relief may be refused where further submissions would not have made any difference to the result.