Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 588

Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 588

The only substantive factor supporting a security for costs order is the applicant's impecuniosity, which alone is insufficient to warrant making the order, especially where the applicant qualifies for standing under special statutory provisions and is litigating a bona fide and arguable public interest matter. To order security in these circumstances would stifle such litigation.

Parties
Applicant: Lawyers for Forests Inc; First Respondent: Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts; Second Respondent: Gunns Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Motion Determination
Outcome
Second respondent's motion for security for costs dismissed. Second respondent to pay applicant's costs of the motion, including compliance with subpoenas, to be taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Impecunious Applicant, Standing, Costs
Practice and Procedure Security for Costs Public Interest Litigation Impecunious Applicant Standing 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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Motion Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against an impecunious applicant in public interest litigation
  2. 2 The impact of special standing provisions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The only substantive factor supporting a security for costs order is the applicant's impecuniosity, which alone is insufficient to warrant making the order, especially where the applicant qualifies for standing under special statutory provisions and is litigating a bona fide and arguable public interest matter. To order security in these circumstances would stifle such litigation.

Court Disposition

Second respondent's motion for security for costs dismissed. Second respondent to pay applicant's costs of the motion, including compliance with subpoenas, to be taxed in default of agreement.

Orders

  • The second respondent's motion dated 24 January 2008 is dismissed.
  • The second respondent pay the applicant's costs of, and associated with the motion, including the costs of compliance with subpoenas, to be taxed in default of agreement.