FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Phong v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth [2001] FCA 1554 COSTS - whether costs should follow the event KEN HA KHANH PHONG v ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD V 737 OF 2001 BLACK CJ, BEAUMONT AND HELY JJ 7 NOVEMBER 2001 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 737 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: KEN HA KHANH PHONG APPELLANT AND: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SECOND RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD FOURTH RESPONDENT JUDGES: BLACK CJ, BEAUMONT AND HELY JJ DATE OF ORDER: 7 NOVEMBER 2001 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 737 OF 2001 ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: KEN HA KHANH PHONG APPELLANT AND: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SECOND RESPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT GROUP 4 CORRECTION SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 050 069 255) FOURTH RESPONDENT JUDGES: BLACK CJ, BEAUMONT & HELY JJ DATE: 7 NOVEMBER 2001 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 The Court has considered the submissions of the parties on the question of costs and has concluded that there is no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs should follow the event. 2 There is no substance in the argument that because the proceedings are in some way related to "criminal proceedings" the rules about costs applicable to criminal trials should be applied to them. 3 Moreover, the respondents have at all times been prepared to meet the appellant's arguments in the appropriate forum so as to avoid a fragmentation of the criminal proceedings. 4 For these reasons, we order that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. We see no reason to disturb the order of Marshall J to the same effect at first instance. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate: Dated: 7 November 2001 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr B Monotti Solicitor for the Appellant: Cole & Magazis Counsel for the 1st and 3rd Respondents: Mr E Lorkin with Ms D Mortimer Solicitor for the 1st and 3rd Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the 2nd Respondent: Mr K Bell QC with Ms Rachel Doyle Solicitor for the 2nd Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions Date of Hearing: 27 August 2001 Date of Judgment: 7 November 2001