Gray and Anor v Macquarie Generation (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 82

Gray and Anor v Macquarie Generation (No 2) [2010] NSWLEC 82

Although the Respondent was partly successful on the preliminary summary dismissal application, the proceedings as a whole were properly characterised as public interest litigation: they focused on public law obligations, were supported by a large number of people, were motivated by public interest and rule of law concerns, involved no pecuniary interest for Mr Gray, and concerned carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations and climate change. The dismissed ground was novel and potentially significant, the surviving claim also raised a novel and potentially significant issue, and there were no countervailing circumstances warranting application of the usual costs rule. Each...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Costs Application Following Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal/strike Out / Costs Determination After Partial Summary Dismissal of the Applicants' Amended Points of Claim
Outcome
Each party to pay its own costs of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 11 September 2009.
Legal Topics
['public Interest Litigation' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'environment Protection Licence' 'carbon Dioxide Emissions' 'summary Dismissal']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['public Interest Litigation' 'costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'environment Protection Licence' 'carbon Dioxide Emissions' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Class 4 Proceedings; Costs Application Following Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal/strike Out / Costs Determination After Partial Summary Dismissal of the Applicants' Amended Points of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Respondent should receive its costs of the Notice of Motion dated 11 September 2009 because it was largely successful.' 'Whether the proceedings should be characterised as public interest litigation justifying departure from the usual costs rule.' 'Whether there were countervailing circumstances requiring the usual costs rule to apply despite any public interest characterisation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Respondent was partly successful on the preliminary summary dismissal application, the proceedings as a whole were properly characterised as public interest litigation: they focused on public law obligations, were supported by a large number of people, were motivated by public interest and rule of law concerns, involved no pecuniary interest for Mr Gray, and concerned carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations and climate change. The dismissed ground was novel and potentially significant, the surviving claim also raised a novel and potentially significant issue, and there were no countervailing circumstances warranting application of the usual costs rule. Each...

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its own costs of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 11 September 2009.

Orders

  • ["Each party should pay its own costs of the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 11 September 2009."]