Holman v Attorney General
- November 2015
Wakefield Quin Limited successfully represented an applicant resisting a costs order in a Constitutional application that the applicant had discontinued.
The usual order when a party has discontinued a matter is that they are liable for the other side’s legal costs. However, the Supreme Court agreed that this rule should not operate against an applicant in an application for Constitutional relief unless the applicant had acted unreasonably in the course of the litigation. The court upheld the principle that there should be no chilling effect on litigants seeking to vindicate Constitutional rights.
Peter Sanderson represented the applicant in the proceedings.