Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1718

Booth v Bosworth [2001] FCA 1718

The justice of the case does not require a departure from the ordinary rule that a successful party in litigation is entitled to an award of costs in its favour, as there are no special or unusual features or disentitling conduct by the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Carol Jeanette Booth; First Respondent: Rohan Brien Bosworth; Second Respondent: Frances Brien Bosworth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Prohibitory Injunction / Costs Determination Following Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay applicant's taxed costs with specified exceptions.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Standing, World Heritage Protection
Environmental Law Practice and Procedure Costs Injunctions Standing World Heritage Protection

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Jeanette Booth

Applicant

Rohan Brien Bosworth

First Respondent

Frances Brien Bosworth

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Prohibitory Injunction / Costs Determination Following Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event in an environmental protection injunction proceeding
  2. 2 Whether special or unusual features justify departure from the usual rule on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The justice of the case does not require a departure from the ordinary rule that a successful party in litigation is entitled to an award of costs in its favour, as there are no special or unusual features or disentitling conduct by the applicant.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay applicant's taxed costs with specified exceptions.

Orders

  • The respondents pay the applicant's taxed costs, including reserved costs (if any), of the proceeding other than: (a) the costs covered by the order made by Spender J on 13 December 2000; and (b) the costs of and incidental to the making of further submissions to the Court on 8 August 2001.