Local Democracy Matters Incorporated v Infrastructure NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 118

Local Democracy Matters Incorporated v Infrastructure NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 118

LDM did not establish the requisite something more to justify a departure from the usual costs rule, even assuming the appeal was public interest litigation. The appeal concerned issues confined to the particular approval process, points already resolved at first instance, did not sufficiently engage protection of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Costs / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
The appellant LDM was ordered to pay the Minister's costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'public Interest Litigation' 'departure From Usual Costs Rule' 'multiple Sets of Costs' 'appeal Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'planning and Environment'] ['costs Following the Event' 'public Interest Litigation' 'departure From Usual Costs Rule' 'multiple Sets of Costs' 'appeal Costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Costs / On the Papers After Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the unsuccessful appellant should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal." 'Whether the appeal was brought in the public interest and, if so, whether something more was shown to justify departure from the usual costs rule.' "Whether the appellant should be ordered to pay more than one set of respondents' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

LDM did not establish the requisite something more to justify a departure from the usual costs rule, even assuming the appeal was public interest litigation. The appeal concerned issues confined to the particular approval process, points already resolved at first instance, did not sufficiently engage protection of an environment of significant value, and was dismissed instanter. However, because the active respondents' interests substantially overlapped and the Minister substantially carried the appeal, it was not reasonable for LDM to bear three sets of costs; LDM should pay only the Minister's costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

The appellant LDM was ordered to pay the Minister's costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ["The appellant LDM pay the Minister's costs of the appeal."]