Australian Conservation Foundation & Ors v Forestry Commission & Ors [1988] FCA 225

Australian Conservation Foundation & Ors v Forestry Commission & Ors [1988] FCA 225

The discretion to award costs must be exercised judicially; applicants, having wholly failed in their application, must normally pay the successful respondents' costs. No special circumstances existed to depart from this rule for public interest entities. The first respondent is entitled to costs except for the day primarily consumed by a failed preliminary objection, and the Commission members, as submitting respondents, are entitled to their costs. The Commonwealth, which did not seek costs, is not awarded any, and the intervener Gunns is entitled to its costs.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Conservation Foundation; Applicant: The Wilderness Society Inc.; Applicant: Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.; First Respondent: Forestry Commission; Second Respondent: Michael Manifold Helsham; Second Respondent: Robert Henry Wallace; Second Respondent: Peter Phillip Hitchcock; Third Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Intervener: Gunns Kilndried Timber Industries Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 1988
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Costs Orders Following Dismissal of Application
Outcome
Orders for costs made against the applicants with specified exceptions.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Costs Discretion, Public Interest Litigation, Orders for Costs Against Public Interest Groups, Standing (locus Standi), Administrative Decisions, Natural Justice
Administrative Law Costs Judicial Review Costs Discretion Public Interest Litigation Orders for Costs Against Public Interest Groups Standing (locus Standi) Administrative Decisions +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Conservation Foundation

Applicant

The Wilderness Society Inc.

Applicant

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Applicant

Forestry Commission

First Respondent

Michael Manifold Helsham

Second Respondent

Robert Henry Wallace

Second Respondent

Peter Phillip Hitchcock

Second Respondent

Commonwealth of Australia

Third Respondent

Gunns Kilndried Timber Industries Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Costs Orders Following Dismissal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether successful respondent in judicial review should be penalised in costs for unsuccessful arguments on locus standi and administrative decision
  2. 2 Whether intervener is entitled to costs though successful
  3. 3 Whether public interest entities should receive immunity or special consideration from costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to award costs must be exercised judicially; applicants, having wholly failed in their application, must normally pay the successful respondents' costs. No special circumstances existed to depart from this rule for public interest entities. The first respondent is entitled to costs except for the day primarily consumed by a failed preliminary objection, and the Commission members, as submitting respondents, are entitled to their costs. The Commonwealth, which did not seek costs, is not awarded any, and the intervener Gunns is entitled to its costs.

Court Disposition

Orders for costs made against the applicants with specified exceptions.

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the costs of the first respondent, excluding costs for appearance in court on 17 February 1988.
  • Applicants to pay the costs of Gunns Kilndried Timber Industries Limited.