Williams v Barrick Australia and Ors [2004] NSWLEC 306

Williams v Barrick Australia and Ors [2004] NSWLEC 306

There were no special circumstances in these proceedings justifying departure from the usual practice that the successful party should receive costs. The claims could not fairly or reasonably be characterised as public interest litigation or as involving a significant public interest element, and the applicant's motivation and circumstances did not warrant a different outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings (civil Enforcement, Costs) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Applications
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the first, second and fourth respondents against the applicant in both proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs in Public Interest Litigation' 'open Standing Provisions' 'protection of Aboriginal Objects' 'statutory Interpretation of Environmental Regulation' 'principles for Awarding Costs' 'land and Environment Court Discretion']
['environmental Law' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs in Public Interest Litigation' 'open Standing Provisions' 'protection of Aboriginal Objects' 'statutory Interpretation of Environmental Regulation' 'principles for Awarding Costs' 'land and Environment Court Discretion']

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 (civil Enforcement, Costs) / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Are there special circumstances justifying departure from the usual rule that the successful party receives costs in class 4 proceedings?' 'Does the public interest nature of the litigation merit a different costs order?' 'Should any set-off be applied due to earlier successes of the applicant in prior stages?']

Ratio Decidendi

There were no special circumstances in these proceedings justifying departure from the usual practice that the successful party should receive costs. The claims could not fairly or reasonably be characterised as public interest litigation or as involving a significant public interest element, and the applicant's motivation and circumstances did not warrant a different outcome.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the first, second and fourth respondents against the applicant in both proceedings.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings No 40010 of 2002, the Applicant pay the costs of the first, second and fourth Respondents incurred in respect of the hearing which commenced on 25 November 2002 and concluded on 7 May 2003 in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.' 'In proceedings No 40948 of 2002 the Applicant pay the...