Ward, Ben & Ors on behalf of the Miriuwong and Gajerrong People v State of Western Australia [1996] FCA 500

Ward, Ben & Ors on behalf of the Miriuwong and Gajerrong People v State of Western Australia [1996] FCA 500

No good reason was shown for departing from the general rule that the respondents, having succeeded on the interlocutory injunction application, should receive their costs. Although native title proceedings require sensitivity and adjustment in applying ordinary procedures, the applicants did not maintain or support the submission that immediate payment and taxation would inhibit their native title claims, and the Court was not fully informed of their financial circumstances. Given the likely long delay before resolution of the claims, the demands of justice required orders that the costs of the interim and interlocutory injunction applications be taxed and paid forthwith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 1996
Procedural Posture
Costs in Interlocutory Injunction Proceedings Arising in a Native Title Application / Costs Reserved After Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction; Determination on Written Submissions and Order for Costs
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory injunction application, with those costs and the interim injunction costs to be taxed and paid forthwith.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Proceedings' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'federal Court Discretion as to Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'native Title'] ['costs of Interlocutory Proceedings' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'taxation and Payment of Costs Forthwith' 'federal Court Discretion as to 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

Costs in Interlocutory Injunction Proceedings Arising in a Native Title Application / Costs Reserved After Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction; Determination on Written Submissions and Order for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondents' costs of the application for an interlocutory injunction." 'Whether the costs of the interim and interlocutory injunction applications should be taxed and paid forthwith before conclusion of the principal proceeding.' 'Whether public interest considerations or the native title context justified departure from the general rule as to interlocutory costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

No good reason was shown for departing from the general rule that the respondents, having succeeded on the interlocutory injunction application, should receive their costs. Although native title proceedings require sensitivity and adjustment in applying ordinary procedures, the applicants did not maintain or support the submission that immediate payment and taxation would inhibit their native title claims, and the Court was not fully informed of their financial circumstances. Given the likely long delay before resolution of the claims, the demands of justice required orders that the costs of the interim and interlocutory injunction applications be taxed and paid forthwith.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the interlocutory injunction application, with those costs and the interim injunction costs to be taxed and paid forthwith.

Orders

  • ["The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application for an interlocutory injunction." 'Such costs, together with the costs of the application for an interim injunction, be taxed and paid forthwith.']