Australian Rail Train and Bus Industry Union v Hyundai Rotem Company [2021] NSWSC 642

Australian Rail Train and Bus Industry Union v Hyundai Rotem Company [2021] NSWSC 642

Each party should bear its own costs because the Union had acted reasonably in commencing and prosecuting the judicial review proceedings until it received the decision-maker's February 2021 affidavit, which first revealed that the Regulator had relied on the 'so far as is reasonably practicable' qualification to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning the National Rail Safety Regulator's Accreditation Decision / Application for Costs After Discontinuance
Outcome
The plaintiff and the first defendant each bear their own costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'rail Transport Operator Accreditation' 'consultation Requirements']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'rail Safety Regulation'] ['discontinuance' 'costs Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'rail Transport Operator Accreditation' 'consultation Requirements']

Source-derived case record

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

Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning the National Rail Safety Regulator's Accreditation Decision / Application for Costs After Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make an order other than the default costs order under r 42.19 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2015 (NSW) after the plaintiff discontinued the proceedings against the first defendant.' 'Whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in commencing and prosecuting the judicial review proceedings until discontinuance.' 'Whether information later provided by the decision-maker justified departing from the default position on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each party should bear its own costs because the Union had acted reasonably in commencing and prosecuting the judicial review proceedings until it received the decision-maker's February 2021 affidavit, which first revealed that the Regulator had relied on the 'so far as is reasonably practicable' qualification to the consultation requirement. Hyundai had not acted unreasonably, but its earlier correspondence did not explain why the Union's concern about non-compliance with mandatory accreditation requirements was wrong, and the extension of time issue was likely to stand or fall with the apparent substantive merit of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff and the first defendant each bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff and the first defendant each bear their own costs of the proceedings.']