The Applicant, Gogan applied for Habeas Corpus after being remanded into custody for violating the terms of his conditional release. The Attorney General successfully applied to strike the Habeas Corpus Application on the ground that Gogan failed to establish adequate particulars of a deprivation of liberty. Gogan was granted leave to re-apply, which he did, by re-filing the same Notice of Application with a new supporting Affidavit. The Attorney General successfully applied to strike the Application again.

In assessing costs, Gill J. noted that a Habeas Corpus Application is a civil Application and the successful party is presumptively granted its Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29. His Lordship also noted that all parties to civil litigation are to conduct themselves in accordance with Rule 1.2, that is, in a timely and cost-effective manner. This obligation includes not pursuing futile applications and disposing of claims in a manner that keeps expense down for all parties and for the Court. Justice Gill noted that the jurisdiction to grant costs for unsuccessful Habeas Corpus Applications is well-established, and that the special nature of this Application demands that its misuse will be met with condemnation by the Court. Gill J. thus awarded $1,000 in Costs payable to the Attorney General by Gogan.