Pham v Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (No 2)

[2016] VSCA 135

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs against tribunals
4. › Tribunal adopting submitting appearance
5. › Whether circumstances justify costs order against respondent tribunal
6. › R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs against interveners
4. › Attorney-General intervening as contradictor
5. › Whether costs of appeal should be awarded against Attorney-General
6. › Whether Attorney-General protecting public moneys appropriated by Parliament
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Costs in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
4. › Intervener not a party
5. › Whether costs incurred as a result of Attorney-General's intervention
6. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), ss 109, 110(2)

Quick Take

A tribunal that adopts a Hardiman submitting appearance will not ordinarily be ordered to pay the costs of a successful appeal. Where the Attorney-General intervenes in victims of crime proceedings and is treated as an intervener with party status, the Attorney-General may be ordered to pay costs of the appeal, particularly where the intervention serves to protect public moneys. However, costs of VCAT proceedings cannot be ordered against the Attorney-General under s 109 of the VCAT Act where the Attorney-General was not a party before VCAT, and s 110(2) requires identification of specific costs incurred as a result of the intervention.