Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 217

Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 217

The Court refused security for costs because, although the Applicant was apparently impecunious, he had a special Aboriginal cultural interest in the subject matter, the proceedings were brought to protect Aboriginal relics and cultural heritage, there was at least an arguable case in respect of the AIR land, and a substantial security order would likely bring the proceedings to an end and deprive the Applicant of a fundamental right to litigate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / First Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Security for Costs
Outcome
First Respondent's application for security for costs dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecunious Applicant' 'open Standing' 'aboriginal Relics' 'interlocutory Relief']
['costs' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'civil Procedure'] ['security for Costs' 'impecunious Applicant' 'open Standing' 'aboriginal Relics' 'interlocutory Relief']

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

Class 4 Proceedings / First Respondent's Notice of Motion Seeking Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the Applicant to give security for the First Respondent's costs under s 69(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979." "Whether an order for security for costs would be oppressive because it would likely bring the Applicant's proceedings to an end." "Whether the Applicant's proceedings, brought to protect Aboriginal relics and cultural heritage, had sufficient public interest and arguable merit to weigh against security for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused security for costs because, although the Applicant was apparently impecunious, he had a special Aboriginal cultural interest in the subject matter, the proceedings were brought to protect Aboriginal relics and cultural heritage, there was at least an arguable case in respect of the AIR land, and a substantial security order would likely bring the proceedings to an end and deprive the Applicant of a fundamental right to litigate.

Court Disposition

First Respondent's application for security for costs dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent's Notice of Motion, filed in Court on 13 November 2002, seeking security for costs is dismissed." 'The question of costs is reserved.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']