Harvey & Anor v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Tubbo Pty Ltd & Ors v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 213

Harvey & Anor v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000; Tubbo Pty Ltd & Ors v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 213

Usual order as to costs should not be displaced because applicants were mainly motivated by commercial interests and stood to gain substantially; while the litigation had some public importance, these factors were not sufficient to alter the standard costs order.

Parties
First Applicant: Adrian David Harvey; Second Applicant: Margaret Elizabeth Harvey; First Applicant: Tubbo Pty Limited; Second Applicant: Tubbo Irrigation Management Pty Limited; Third Applicant: Orchard Farms Pty Limited; Fourth Applicant: Four Arrows Rural Management Pty Limited; Respondent: Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Class 4 Application
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Water Management, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Public Interest Litigation Water Management Judicial Review Procedural Fairness

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian David Harvey

First Applicant

Margaret Elizabeth Harvey

Second Applicant

Tubbo Pty Limited

First Applicant

Tubbo Irrigation Management Pty Limited

Second Applicant

Orchard Farms Pty Limited

Third Applicant

Four Arrows Rural Management Pty Limited

Fourth Applicant

Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Class 4 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the usual order as to costs should be made after dismissal of application challenging water management plan
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were brought in the public interest such as to displace the usual costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Usual order as to costs should not be displaced because applicants were mainly motivated by commercial interests and stood to gain substantially; while the litigation had some public importance, these factors were not sufficient to alter the standard costs order.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed in matters 41275 of 2006 and 41283 of 2006