Lawyers for Forests Inc. v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (No 2) [2009] FCA 466

Lawyers for Forests Inc. v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts (No 2) [2009] FCA 466

The applicant failed to identify circumstances sufficient to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event. Public interest considerations, the applicant's status as a non-profit, and alleged novel issues were not sufficient. There was no evidence supporting exceptional circumstances, and the litigation did not involve particularly novel legal questions. The respondents were entitled to their costs.

Parties
Applicant: Lawyers for Forests Inc.; First Respondent: Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts; Second Respondent: Gunns Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (costs Determination) / Post Judgment, Costs Order
Outcome
Application for no or reduced costs order dismissed; usual order for costs made.
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion, Public Interest Litigation, Standing Under EPBC Act, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Discretion Public Interest Litigation Standing Under EPBC Act Judicial Review

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawyers for Forests Inc.

Applicant

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

First Respondent

Gunns Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review (costs Determination) / Post Judgment, Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event in public interest environmental litigation.
  2. 2 Consideration of the objects and standing provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) in awarding costs.
  3. 3 Whether 'exceptional and special circumstances' exist to warrant a different costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify circumstances sufficient to displace the usual rule that costs follow the event. Public interest considerations, the applicant's status as a non-profit, and alleged novel issues were not sufficient. There was no evidence supporting exceptional circumstances, and the litigation did not involve particularly novel legal questions. The respondents were entitled to their costs.

Court Disposition

Application for no or reduced costs order dismissed; usual order for costs made.

Orders

  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application.