A comment on costs in Constitutional cases

Iain Field

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Professor Patrick Keyzer and Stephen Lloyd SC are both well qualified to speak to the legal principles that govern the determination of costs in constitutional cases, and I am, with respect, happy to accept their combined review of these principles. I do not think that there are any significant disagreements between them in this regard. They have, nevertheless, provided us with two usefully distinct perspectives on the topic, and offered two contrasting views as to the need for special costs rules in constitutional cases. I have only a small number of observations (perhaps it is better to say questions), which build upon some of the issues already raised. These questions relate, in particular, to the possible consequences of special costs rules in constitutional cases, the potential for such rules to increase access to constitutional justice, and whether existing principles might be sufficient as they stand to achieve this objective.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)104-110
Number of pages7
JournalBond Law Review
Volume22
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

costs
respect
university teacher
justice

Cite this

Field, I. (2010). A comment on costs in Constitutional cases. Bond Law Review, 22(3), 104-110.
Field, Iain. / A comment on costs in Constitutional cases. In: Bond Law Review. 2010 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 104-110.
@article{034863a0e4d4475d91fe3d2415a82744,
title = "A comment on costs in Constitutional cases",
abstract = "Professor Patrick Keyzer and Stephen Lloyd SC are both well qualified to speak to the legal principles that govern the determination of costs in constitutional cases, and I am, with respect, happy to accept their combined review of these principles. I do not think that there are any significant disagreements between them in this regard. They have, nevertheless, provided us with two usefully distinct perspectives on the topic, and offered two contrasting views as to the need for special costs rules in constitutional cases. I have only a small number of observations (perhaps it is better to say questions), which build upon some of the issues already raised. These questions relate, in particular, to the possible consequences of special costs rules in constitutional cases, the potential for such rules to increase access to constitutional justice, and whether existing principles might be sufficient as they stand to achieve this objective.",
author = "Iain Field",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "104--110",
journal = "Bond Law Review",
issn = "1033-4505",
publisher = "Bond University Press",
number = "3",

}

Field, I 2010, 'A comment on costs in Constitutional cases' Bond Law Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 104-110.

A comment on costs in Constitutional cases. / Field, Iain.

In: Bond Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010, p. 104-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comment on costs in Constitutional cases

AU - Field, Iain

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Professor Patrick Keyzer and Stephen Lloyd SC are both well qualified to speak to the legal principles that govern the determination of costs in constitutional cases, and I am, with respect, happy to accept their combined review of these principles. I do not think that there are any significant disagreements between them in this regard. They have, nevertheless, provided us with two usefully distinct perspectives on the topic, and offered two contrasting views as to the need for special costs rules in constitutional cases. I have only a small number of observations (perhaps it is better to say questions), which build upon some of the issues already raised. These questions relate, in particular, to the possible consequences of special costs rules in constitutional cases, the potential for such rules to increase access to constitutional justice, and whether existing principles might be sufficient as they stand to achieve this objective.

AB - Professor Patrick Keyzer and Stephen Lloyd SC are both well qualified to speak to the legal principles that govern the determination of costs in constitutional cases, and I am, with respect, happy to accept their combined review of these principles. I do not think that there are any significant disagreements between them in this regard. They have, nevertheless, provided us with two usefully distinct perspectives on the topic, and offered two contrasting views as to the need for special costs rules in constitutional cases. I have only a small number of observations (perhaps it is better to say questions), which build upon some of the issues already raised. These questions relate, in particular, to the possible consequences of special costs rules in constitutional cases, the potential for such rules to increase access to constitutional justice, and whether existing principles might be sufficient as they stand to achieve this objective.

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 104

EP - 110

JO - Bond Law Review

JF - Bond Law Review

SN - 1033-4505

IS - 3

ER -