ESHO v PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY OF NSW & ANOR [2006] NSWSC 345

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : ESHO v PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY OF NSW & ANOR [2006] NSWSC 345

HEARING DATE(S) : 15 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 28 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Rothman J at 1

DECISION : Second Defendant pay the claimant's costs of and incidentnal to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS : Administrative law - substantive proceedings - prerogative relief - costs

CASES CITED : Esho v Parole Authority of NSW [2006] NSWSC 304

Claimant: ESHO, Edward PARTIES : Defendant 1: Parole Board Authority of New South Wales Defendant 2: Attorney Generals Department

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30013/2006

COUNSEL : Claimant: Ms Bashir Defendants: Mr Hoy (AGD)

SOLICITORS : Claimant: Justin Le Blond Defendants: Anne Bonner (Crown Solicitor)

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

JUSTICE ROTHMAN

28 April 2006

Edward ESHO v PAROLE BOARD AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES 30013/2006

JUDGMENT

1. His Honour: On 21 April 2006 I made orders in the nature of prerogative relief quashing the determination of the New South Wales Parole Authority and requiring the Parole Authority to convene and determine the application for parole by the claimant. I published Reasons for Judgment with which these reasons need to be read: Esho v Parole Authority of NSW [2006] NSWSC 304.

2. The substantive proceedings were before me on 15 March 2006 and were the subject of written submissions thereafter. Further directions were made on 18 April 2006 and I reserved to the parties the issue of costs of and incidental to the proceedings. A concern expressed at the hearing on 21 April 2006 was the power to order costs against to the Attorney General in circumstances where the Attorney General was not a party to the proceedings. The first opponent, the Parole Authority, had filed a submitting appearance and had submitted to any order of the Court save as to an order for costs.