Green & Anor v Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 133

Green & Anor v Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 133

The usual order that the unsuccessful applicants pay the successful respondent's costs was displaced because the respondent made a plan containing an error of critical significance, failed to correct it in a timely way, and thereby effectively invited the proceedings; however, the respondent was not required to pay the applicants' costs because the applicants knew the nature of the error by 31 October 2007, knew the respondent's argument two days before the hearing, and chose to advance an unsuccessful alternative construction. The just order was that each party pay its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application; Costs Determination / After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application; Costs Determined in Chambers on Written Submissions
Outcome
Each party ordered to pay its own costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['usual Order as to Costs' 'discretion as to Costs' "successful Party's Conduct Inviting Litigation" 'aquifer Access Licence Share Component' 'inconsistent Legislative Instruments']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'water Management' 'land and Environment'] ['usual Order as to Costs' 'discretion as to Costs' "successful Party's Conduct Inviting Litigation" 'aquifer Access Licence Share Component' 'inconsistent Legislative Instruments']

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 Application; Costs Determination / After Dismissal of the Applicants' Application; Costs Determined in Chambers on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the usual order as to costs should be made in favour of the successful respondent' "Whether the respondent's conduct before and during the proceedings displaced the usual costs order" "Whether each party should pay its own costs or the respondent should pay the applicants' costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The usual order that the unsuccessful applicants pay the successful respondent's costs was displaced because the respondent made a plan containing an error of critical significance, failed to correct it in a timely way, and thereby effectively invited the proceedings; however, the respondent was not required to pay the applicants' costs because the applicants knew the nature of the error by 31 October 2007, knew the respondent's argument two days before the hearing, and chose to advance an unsuccessful alternative construction. The just order was that each party pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Each party ordered to pay its own costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Each party is ordered to pay their own costs of the proceedings.']