Burragubba v State of Queensland (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 65

Burragubba v State of Queensland (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 65

The appellant failed to show circumstances justifying departure from the usual costs order after an unsuccessful appeal. He was pursuing his own interest, notwithstanding his asserted wider purpose; there was no evidence that the relevant families generally agreed with his view or could not express their own views; the appeal was unmeritorious by reference to existing authority and statutory language; and the public interest asserted in economic, employment, environmental and cultural impacts did not justify relieving him from paying the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Costs on Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal
Outcome
The appellant was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'public Interest Litigation' 'judicial Review' 'adjr Standing' 'native Title Act Future Act Procedure']
['administrative Law' 'native Title' 'costs'] ['costs Discretion' 'public Interest Litigation' 'judicial Review' 'adjr Standing' 'native Title Act Future Act Procedure']

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 on Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) / Determined on the Papers After Dismissal of the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant should pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal after the appeal was dismissed." 'Whether the alleged public character of the proceedings, novel questions of public importance, or public interest in the proposed mine justified departing from the usual order that costs follow the event.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to show circumstances justifying departure from the usual costs order after an unsuccessful appeal. He was pursuing his own interest, notwithstanding his asserted wider purpose; there was no evidence that the relevant families generally agreed with his view or could not express their own views; the appeal was unmeritorious by reference to existing authority and statutory language; and the public interest asserted in economic, employment, environmental and cultural impacts did not justify relieving him from paying the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

The appellant was ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ["The appellant pay the first and second respondents' costs of the appeal."]