The Court awarded indemnity costs against respondents who made a blanket claim of legal professional privilege over seized material but then repeatedly failed to respond to the AFP's communications, failed to comply with court orders during case management, and ultimately abandoned the privilege claims. The Court held that the respondents' pre-litigation failure to engage (which necessitated the proceedings) and their repeated non-compliance with court orders during the proceedings constituted the special or unusual features warranting departure from party-and-party costs. However, the Court limited the indemnity costs period to commence from the date the respondents were put on notice of the AFP's intention to revisit the privilege claim (11 April 2025), rather than the earlier date when the AFP first sought internal legal advice, and referred quantification to a Registrar due to insufficient information supporting the largest component of the costs claimed.
The full text is available to signed-in members.