Leanne Cover, pictured outside the ACT Courts in 2024. Photo: Albert McKnight.
Leanne Cover has been dealt yet another blow after she was ordered to pay 85 per cent of the legal costs incurred by the ACT Integrity Commission during the unsuccessful civil case she launched against the watchdog.
The ACT Supreme Court’s Justice David Mossop dismissed the case initiated by the former CEO of the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) in September, finding no grounds of appeal were established.
As the commission was successful, it asked for Ms Cover to pay its legal costs in the proceedings, while she asked for there to be no order about these costs.
Ms Cover argued that she should be awarded costs on the question of parliamentary privilege, which had been debated in the proceedings, as the commission lost on this matter.
She said her success here “clarifies a very important aspect of the public law of the Territory”.
But in a decision published this week, Justice Mossop said Ms Cover had been generally unsuccessful.
“That the plaintiff is an individual challenging government action has not been accepted as a basis for routinely departing from the compensatory principle underlying the award of costs in public law proceedings,” he said.
“It is not unusual in public law cases for there to be determination of significant questions of statutory construction or public law generally.”
But he also said that, as she had been successful on the parliamentary privilege point, it was appropriate to make some adjustment to the overall costs order.
The judge ordered her to pay 85 per cent of the commission’s costs of the proceedings.
When contacted about the order, an Integrity Commission spokesperson said the commission welcomed the Supreme Court decision.
“We cannot provide comment on the legal costs as amounts are still being negotiated,” they said.
The failed civil case began because, last year, an Integrity Commission Special Report for Operation Luna found Ms Cover was “guilty of serious corrupt conduct” during her role as CIT’s CEO.
The report related to her alleged actions regarding CIT contracts worth $8.5 million being awarded to consultant and “complexity and systems thinker” Patrick Hollingworth of Redrouge Nominees. No findings were made against Mr Hollingworth.
She began to sue the commission in the Supreme Court over the report, seeking declarations and relief from a judicial review.
As part of her case, Ms Cover’s lawyers disputed the meaning of the words “serious corrupt conduct”. They argued that using the phrase meant the report was affected by an error of law, but Justice Mossop rejected this.
Meanwhile, during the hearings, both the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mark Parton, and the commission argued that the report was a “proceeding in parliament” and therefore not admissible as evidence.
They argued that if it were admitted as evidence, it could be challenged in a way that is prevented by parliamentary privilege.
If the report were covered by parliamentary privilege, it would mean it would be protected by legal immunities.
But Justice Mossop found the report was admissible. He said parliamentary privilege did not apply because the commission was a separate statutory entity independent of the Legislative Assembly.
While the judge admitted the report into the proceedings, he still dismissed the case.
This is pretty funny, and quite an interesting proof (in the vernacular sense). After Capital Retro… View