Page:AB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.pdf/23

Gageler CJ Gordon J Edelman J Steward J Gleeson J Jagot J Beech-Jones J

have succeeded on that issue. They were otherwise only successful in relation to one aspect of the Draft Report. They should have an order for their costs in this Court, but there should be no order as to costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance and the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

44 The following orders should be made:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside orders 1 and 4 made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria on 15 December 2022 and, in their place, order that:


 * (a) the application for leave to appeal be granted;


 * (b) orders 1 and 2 made by Ginnane J on 4 October 2022 be set aside and in their place:


 * (i) note the undertaking given by the respondent to the High Court of Australia on 7 December 2023 that it will not transmit to the Parliament of Victoria a report pursuant to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic) containing the proposed comment or opinion set out in the sixth paragraph on page 32 of the appellants' Book of Further Materials filed in the High Court of Australia;


 * (ii) order that each party pay their own costs of the proceedings; and


 * (iii) order that the proceedings otherwise be dismissed;


 * (c) each party pay their own costs of the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal; and


 * (d) the appeal otherwise be dismissed.

3. The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal to this Court.