Maules Creek Community Council Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 123

Maules Creek Community Council Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 123

The Court was satisfied that the proceedings were brought in the public interest for the purposes of r 4.2(1) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), and found no countervailing considerations to justify a costs order against the unsuccessful applicant. It was therefore appropriate not to make any order as to costs, so that each party bears its own costs, including those relating to the application for costs.

Parties
Applicant: Maules Creek Community Council Incorporated (INC9894709); First Respondent: Environment Protection Authority; Second Respondent: Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 140 533 875); Intervenor: Attorney General for New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement (class 4) / Post Judgment: Application for Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs (each party pays own costs, including costs application)
Legal Topics
Costs in Public Interest Litigation, Civil Enforcement Proceedings, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Environment Protection Licence Reviews
Environmental Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs in Public Interest Litigation Civil Enforcement Proceedings Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Environment Protection Licence Reviews

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maules Creek Community Council Incorporated (INC9894709)

Applicant

Environment Protection Authority

First Respondent

Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 140 533 875)

Second Respondent

Attorney General for New South Wales

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement (class 4) / Post Judgment: Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings were brought in the public interest for the purposes of r 4.2(1) Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether there are countervailing considerations (including disentitling conduct) weighing against the exercise of costs discretion in favour of the unsuccessful applicant
  3. 3 Whether the usual rule that costs follow the event should be displaced in light of public interest litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the proceedings were brought in the public interest for the purposes of r 4.2(1) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW), and found no countervailing considerations to justify a costs order against the unsuccessful applicant. It was therefore appropriate not to make any order as to costs, so that each party bears its own costs, including those relating to the application for costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs (each party pays own costs, including costs application)

Orders

  • There be no order as to the costs of the proceedings, including the application for costs of the proceedings, with the intention that each party pays their own costs of the proceedings.