Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 147

Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] NSWLEC 147

The proceedings were brought in the public interest as they sought to enforce public law obligations for environmental protection, raised issues of general importance, and involved wide public concern with no pecuniary interest for the applicant or its members. No unreasonable conduct by MGPA justified departing...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc; First Respondent: Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Independent Planning Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Review, Climate Change, Development Consent
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Public Interest Litigation Judicial Review Climate Change Development Consent

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc

Applicant

Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Independent Planning Commissioner

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings were brought in the public interest for the purposes of r 4.2(1) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007
  2. 2 Whether an order for costs should be made against the unsuccessful applicant
  3. 3 Unreasonable conduct of litigation regarding expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were brought in the public interest as they sought to enforce public law obligations for environmental protection, raised issues of general importance, and involved wide public concern with no pecuniary interest for the applicant or its members. No unreasonable conduct by MGPA justified departing from the usual costs rule. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion under r 4.2(1) to make no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs.

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 pay their own costs of the proceedings.