Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. [5] Mr Taylor submits that he should accordingly be treated in the same way as the Attorney-General who would be entitled to an award of costs if successful. It is also submitted that the effect of s 27(3) was not considered in McGuire. [6] In McGuire the Court concluded that if the law in this area was to be reformed, “this should be effected otherwise than by the courts”.3 The Court noted such reform could be by the legislature but that “such reform [was] probably within the competence of the Rules Committee”.4 Given the indication changes to the current position are best addressed through the law reform process it would not be sensible or appropriate for the Court now to revisit the matter. The arguments raised by Mr Taylor are ones no doubt that can be considered in the context of any law reform exercise. [7] We do not accept Mr Taylor’s submission that the approach in McGuire to costs for a lay litigant who is not a lawyer is distinguishable from the present case on the basis that it dealt with costs in the High Court. As indicated we do not consider it appropriate to depart from the approach in McGuire. This means that no order for costs can be made to Mr Taylor but he is entitled to be paid usual disbursements. The approach to costs for the other respondents [8] The primary issue that arises in relation to costs for the second to fifth respondents is whether there should be any discount in the amount awarded. It is accepted by the appellant that an award of costs is appropriate on the basis costs should follow the event. However, it is submitted the Court may consider a discount is appropriate to reflect the fact much of the argument for the respondents was carried by the other participants (primarily, the Human Rights Commission as intervener). Mr Francois for the second to fifth respondents submits there should be an award of $25,000, a figure which, on his analysis, reflects no discount. 3 4 At [88] per William Young J delivering the reasons of Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ and see at [90] per Ellen France J. At [88].