Gomeroi People v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 3) [2018] FCA 71

Gomeroi People v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 3) [2018] FCA 71

The Court was not satisfied on the evidence that the Current Applicant engaged in relevant misconduct or unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order, and although the Current Applicant raised technical and pedantic points, both sides contributed to the complexity and length of the hearing. The Court therefore did not depart from the starting point that each party should bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Native Title Costs Application / Costs Determination After Order Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth), Heard on the Papers
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'costs Discretion Under S 85 a of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'no Order as to Costs']
['native Title' 'costs'] ['replacement of Applicant Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'costs Discretion Under S 85 a of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth)' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'no Order as to Costs']

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

Native Title Costs Application / Costs Determination After Order Under S 66 B of the Native Title Act 1993 (cth), Heard on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Current Applicant's conduct in relation to the s 66B application was unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order under s 85A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)." 'Whether the Current Applicant caused unnecessary complexity and prolongation of the hearing so as to warrant departure from the starting point that each party bear its own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied on the evidence that the Current Applicant engaged in relevant misconduct or unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order, and although the Current Applicant raised technical and pedantic points, both sides contributed to the complexity and length of the hearing. The Court therefore did not depart from the starting point that each party should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['There will be no order as to the costs of the application brought under s 66B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).']