Environment Protection Authority v Riverina (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 252

Environment Protection Authority v Riverina (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 252

The respondent was the successful party on the stated case and the appellant's failure to amend the Summons after its defects were raised provided a proper basis, and if necessary a special reason, for ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court. No further amendment or election direction was appropriate because the Land and Environment Court had sufficient case management powers after the answers to the stated case. Costs of the proceedings below should not be ordered by this Court because they are governed by the statutory costs regime and discretion of the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Stated Case Under S 5 AE Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in Class 5 Proceedings / Determination on Written Submissions of Ancillary Matters and Costs After Principal Judgment Answering Stated Questions
Outcome
Proceedings remitted to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales; respondent awarded costs of the proceedings in this Court; no costs order made for the proceedings below.
Legal Topics
['stated Case' 'duplicity of Summons' 'costs of Appeal' 'costs in Land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'remittal']
['criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['stated Case' 'duplicity of Summons' 'costs of Appeal' 'costs in Land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'remittal']

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

Stated Case Under S 5 AE Criminal Appeal Act 1912 From the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in Class 5 Proceedings / Determination on Written Submissions of Ancillary Matters and Costs After Principal Judgment Answering Stated Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should remit the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court or make further directions requiring the prosecutor to amend or elect in relation to the Summons.' 'Whether the respondent should receive its costs of the stated case proceedings in this Court.' 'Whether this Court should order costs in favour of the respondent for proceedings in the Land and Environment Court below.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was the successful party on the stated case and the appellant's failure to amend the Summons after its defects were raised provided a proper basis, and if necessary a special reason, for ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court. No further amendment or election direction was appropriate because the Land and Environment Court had sufficient case management powers after the answers to the stated case. Costs of the proceedings below should not be ordered by this Court because they are governed by the statutory costs regime and discretion of the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Proceedings remitted to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales; respondent awarded costs of the proceedings in this Court; no costs order made for the proceedings below.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be remitted to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.' 'The appellant, the Environment Protection Authority, is to pay the costs of the respondent, Riverina Australia Pty Ltd of the proceedings in this Court.']