Federal Court. The judicial review applicant rejected an offer of compromise by the Respondent in relation to costs which was as good as the result of the case. Did that rejection justify him paying costs incurred by the Respondent after the expiry of the offer?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In one sense, is every piece of litigation that alleges invalidity in relation to an exercise of public power in the “public interest”?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', is that enough to justify departure from the default position that costs should be borne by the party who discontinued judicial review proceedings?
Question 3: The Applicant rejected an offer of compromise by the Respondent in relation to costs which was as good as the result of the case. Did that rejection justify him paying costs incurred by the Respondent after the expiry of the offer?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: