Judge refers to prior order that refused to limit costs to filing fee
After quashing or setting aside the Australian information commissioner’s decision declining to investigate a privacy complaint, the Federal Court ordered the commissioner to pay the applicant’s application costs.
In Bilal v Australian Information Commissioner (Costs) [2026] FCA 1275, the applicant filed a privacy complaint dated 24 March 2025 against EML Group. On 29 September 2025, the respondent information commissioner refused to investigate the privacy complaint.
On 20 October 2025, before the Federal Court, the applicant sought a judicial review of the respondent commissioner’s decision.
On 27 March 2026, Justice Craig Lenehan of the Federal Court held a case management hearing. The judge issued orders for timetabling and providing evidence and submissions.
Later, the judge found a substantial overlap in the parties’ competing proposals.
In Bilal v Australian Information Commissioner [2026] FCA 376, a proceeding involving the same parties and similar facts, Justice Stewart of the Federal Court ordered the respondent commissioner to pay the applicant’s application costs.
While recognising that the applicant was a litigant in person without a lawyer on the record, Justice Stewart rejected the commissioner’s argument seeking to limit costs to the filing fee.
“What the applicant is entitled to by way of costs, once he has a costs order in his favour, is a matter for taxation and is not to be enquired into or determined at this stage,” Justice Stewart wrote.
Justice Lenehan issued orders by consent that sought to:
According to the commissioner, the court should limit costs to those awarded to self-represented and other litigants, who could recover disbursements for out-of-pocket amounts paid to others.
Justice Lenehan ordered the respondent commissioner to pay the applicant’s application costs.
While acknowledging that the applicant represented himself throughout the matter and lacked a solicitor on the record, Justice Lenehan saw no reason to depart from Justice Stewart’s approach.
“Whether or not the applicant can demonstrate that he is incurred any expense or fees in the conduct of his litigation is a matter for taxation,” Justice Lenehan wrote for the Federal Court. “If he cannot demonstrate those costs, then presumably the respondent will not be required to make any payment.”
Here are some other recent cost-centred decisions by the Federal Court of Australia.
On 22 July 2026, the court awarded the applicant lump sum costs of $1,000 upon finding that the respondent failed to appear at a hearing because its counsel could not maintain a reliable, continuous video or audio link throughout the hearing.
On 23 December 2025, the court ordered a plaintiff to pay two parties’ costs in connection with interlocutory processes that requested the production of documents over which the parties asserted legal professional privilege.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
