Grube v Minister for Lands and the Environment (No 2) [2005] NFSC 5

Grube v Minister for Lands and the Environment (No 2) [2005] NFSC 5

The proceedings were not properly characterised as public interest litigation and the Court declined to conduct a mini-trial into historical allegations between the parties, but the respondents' unsuccessful argument that no ground of appeal raised a question of law protracted the proceedings and caused additional work. There was no foundation for indemnity costs or for an order requiring the appellants' solicitor to meet costs. The appropriate order was that the appellants pay fifty per cent of each respondent's costs on a party and party basis, taxed in default of agreement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Review Tribunal / Costs Determination After Judgment Dismissing the Appeal
Outcome
The appellants were ordered to pay fifty per cent of each respondent's costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and solicitor repayment orders were not made.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'public Interest Litigation' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Liability for Costs' 'party and Party Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'public Interest Litigation' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Liability for Costs' 'party and Party Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Review Tribunal / Costs Determination After Judgment Dismissing the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event after the appeal was dismissed.' 'Whether the appeal was public interest litigation warranting no order as to costs.' 'Whether the history and conduct of the dispute warranted no order as to costs.' "Whether the appellants should pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis." "Whether the appellants' solicitor should repay any costs the appellants were ordered to pay to the respondents."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were not properly characterised as public interest litigation and the Court declined to conduct a mini-trial into historical allegations between the parties, but the respondents' unsuccessful argument that no ground of appeal raised a question of law protracted the proceedings and caused additional work. There was no foundation for indemnity costs or for an order requiring the appellants' solicitor to meet costs. The appropriate order was that the appellants pay fifty per cent of each respondent's costs on a party and party basis, taxed in default of agreement.

Court Disposition

The appellants were ordered to pay fifty per cent of each respondent's costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and solicitor repayment orders were not made.

Orders

  • ['The appellants pay fifty per cent (50%) of the costs of each of the first and second respondents, of and incidental to the appeal.' 'Such costs be taxed on a party and party basis, in default of agreement.']