[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Nauru

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1977 >> [1977] NRSC 5

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Tom v Degoregore [1977] NRSC 5; [1969-1982] NLR (D) 61 (27 September 1977)

[1969-1982] NLR (D) 61

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1977

RIMONE JACK TOM

v.

ROY DEGOREGORE

27th September, 1977

Costs - representation by counsel from overseas.

Appeal against award of $3,000 costs to successful defendant. The respondent was prosecuted for defamation by a private prosecutor. He engaged a barrister and solicitor resident in Nauru and, in addition, a. second barrister and solicitor who practised in the State of Victoria, Australia, as Queen's Counsel.

Held: Although it may possibly have been necessary to. engage counsel from overseas, costs cannot be recovered to reimburse the successful defendant the expense of bringing one of the leading practitioners from a country where legal fees are, by Pacific standards, high. Costs reduced to $500.

K.C. Ramrakha for the appellant.
E.D. Lloyd & L.D. Keke for the respondent.

Thompson CJ:

With regard to the award of costs, the District Court was entitled to deal with that matter, in the same way as it can in an appropriate case revise a sentence or order, because it had not risen, except for a brief adjournment, before it made its order for costs.

So far as quantum is concerned, it is undesirable that large amounts should be awarded in criminal cases when there has been no frivolous or vexatious prosecution. In this case the prosecution introduced counsel from overseas into the proceedings.

It was possibly necessary for the respondent to engage counsel from overseas, although it is to be noted that he was also represented by Mr. Keke. However, it was not in my view necessary to engage one of Melbourne's foremost senior counsel, indeed any counsel from Australia. No doubt the respondent wanted the best, but he cannot expect to be reimbursed to the extent of the cost of obtaining the best. It seems likely that, if Mr. Keke had sought advice from experienced counsel overseas he could have represented the respondent adequately. That being so I consider that the appropriate amount of costs was, as suggested by Mr. Ramrakha, $500.

The appeal against the quantum of the costs is allowed. A sum of $500 is substituted for the sum of $3,000 awarded.