A Battle and a Gamble: The Spectre of an Adverse Costs Order in Constitutional Litigation

16 Pages Posted: 1 Sep 2016 Last revised: 7 Dec 2017

Date Written: August 19, 2011

Abstract

With the notable exception that an Attorney-General intervening is not liable to pay or entitled to receive costs, the High Court has almost invariably applied the indemnity rule, which is that the winner receives their costs of the litigation from the loser. This rule applies to the 'substantive' issues raised in a case and also to 'procedural' arguments over such things as standing. Constitutional cases are treated no differently from other cases. No special privilege applies to constitutional cases in light of the significant function they have in securing the rule of law through judicial review. In other words, you may need to pay the government to ensure that its acts are constitutional.

Keywords: Access to Constitutional Justice, Costs, Constitutional Litigants, Indemnity Rule, Critique of Indemnity Rationale

Suggested Citation

Keyzer, Patrick, A Battle and a Gamble: The Spectre of an Adverse Costs Order in Constitutional Litigation (August 19, 2011). 22(3) Bond Law Review (Article 6) 82 (2011), La Trobe Law School - Law & Justice Research Paper Series Paper No. 16-8, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2833105

Patrick Keyzer (Contact Author)

La Trobe Law School ( email )

La Trobe University
Bundoora, VIC 3083 3142
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
26
Abstract Views
253
PlumX Metrics