Zaiter v Ruddock

Costs as between Mr Zaiter and Mr Camenzuli - Consideration and conclusion

1. In what follows I substantially adopt the submissions put by Mr Robertson which is why I do not set them out separately. What follows are my reasons for rejecting Mr King's submissions and for making the orders sought by Mr Robertson for his client (being orders 1 to 3 set out in [2] above).
2. The proceedings were heard by reference to the amended summons which is set out in [13] of the Principal Judgment. In the light of the Court's conclusions in the Principal Judgment, there was no basis to make any of the declarations or injunctions that had been pressed. The total failure to obtain any of the relief sought is the relevant "event" for the purposes of exercising the Court's costs discretion.
3. Costs follow the event (see r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)) and there is no reason why that should not be the case here.
4. Turning to Mr King's submissions: 1. While institutional harmony is, of course, a desirable thing, the harmony or otherwise as between the members of State Executive is not relevant to the Court's exercise of its costs discretion. 2. While there can be no doubt that the matters advanced by Mr Zaiter were brought bona fide and raised arguable questions, neither of those things is a basis to alter what would be the usual costs consequences in this case. There are many cases that come before the Court where the unsuccessful party has quite properly raised matters that were seriously arguable, but has failed at the end of the litigation. Absent some other factor, costs nevertheless follow the event. 3. While the Party plays an important part in Australia's democracy, litigation about the construction of its constitution is not public interest litigation in the sense used in Oshlack. In particular, the High Court noted at [20] that one of the grounds upon which the trial judge had made the order in that case was that Mr Oshlack had no personal interest in the litigation and did not stand to make any personal gain by its outcome. That is not the case here. With absolutely no disrespect intended, Mr Zaiter was advancing, as he was perfectly entitled to as a citizen and member of the Party, his personal interest to advance his wish to be an endorsed Party candidate in the forthcoming elections. As between him and Mr Camenzuli, this was adversarial litigation.
5. As for the alternative method advanced by Mr King to reach the result that there should be no order as to costs, this was urgent litigation where the parties worked very hard to bring about a swift resolution of an important matter. It would not be appropriate in those circumstances to dissect failings in interlocutory steps that had been ordered at short notice to enable the proceedings to be heard very quickly in an attempt to determine who should obtain costs of particular steps along the way or which were occasioned as a result of delays in those steps being achieved. This is a matter where, in relation to the interlocutory steps, a classic broad brush needs to be applied and there is no reason why the ordinary rule should not apply that interlocutory costs go with the general costs of the proceedings (see r 42.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)).
6. Finally, the notation sought by Mr King is not appropriate. This is not a case where some intermediate step or agreement needs to be recorded as a notation to explain why the Court has then gone on to make whatever orders it has in fact made. The parties did not require the Court to adjudicate the question of the applicability of cl 13.2.4. That is recorded in the judgment, which must be left to speak for itself. A notation is not itself a source of legal rights or obligations and might be apt to mislead that it has such an effect if it is included in the Court's orders disposing of the proceedings.

The Submitting Parties' costs

1. Mr Duggan sought the Submitting Parties' costs and those of the Party. The circumstances of the brief appearance of the Party are set out in [9]-[11] of the Principal Judgment.
2. Mr Duggan's submission was that, while they had ultimately and properly entered a submitting appearance when it became apparent that an active contradictor was available to contradict the propositions to be put by Mr Zaiter, the Submitting Parties and the Party were entitled to their costs up to that point (or, in the case of the Party, up to the point at which it was substituted out of the proceedings).
3. Mr King submitted that the submitting appearance entered by the Submitting Parties should be taken to mean what it said. The Submitting Parties had agreed by their submitting appearance to submit to any order or judgment of the Court save as to costs.
4. Mr Duggan candidly informed the Court that he had been unable to find any authority in which a party who had entered a submitting appearance had then had a costs order made in its favour. In circumstances such as these, the Court would normally be hesitant to make an order in favour of a party that has entered a submitting appearance because in many, if not most, cases the relevant "event" would simply not affect the party that had entered the submitting appearance, especially if that party's submission was akin to an interpleader.
5. However, in this case the event is clear by reason of the dismissal that I will order of the amended summons. The Submitting Parties and the Party would have been affected by any orders made pursuant to the amended summons had Mr Zaiter succeeded in any respect. In the events which have happened, no orders other than a dismissal will be made so that it may be inferred that the event for all practical purposes, to the extent that they participated in the proceedings, is that the Submitting Parties and the Party may be taken to have notionally succeeded. Putting it another way, they have incurred costs in relation to an unsuccessful cause. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the Submitting Parties and the Party to have their costs paid by Mr Zaiter for today and until they had entered their submitting appearances or (in the case of the Party) had been substituted out of the proceedings.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 July 2021