Williams v Pardoe and Ors [2003] NSWLEC 363

Williams v Pardoe and Ors [2003] NSWLEC 363

Security for costs was refused because the Applicant's circumstances were significantly different from Melville: he claimed a special Aboriginal customary responsibility and had express entitlements under the Permit, an order for security would likely stifle the litigation, the motion was belated given the known history of his impecuniosity, and the proceedings had a strong public interest element in enforcing rigorous permit conditions concerning Aboriginal objects. The strike out or stay application was refused because the present claim that the Permit had become nugatory through alleged breaches in implementation was sufficiently different in law and fact from the earlier unsuccessful...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Concerning Alleged Breaches of a S 87 Permit / Notice of Motion by the First to Third Respondents Seeking Security for Costs and Strike Out or Permanent Stay of Paragraph 6 of the Amended Class 4 Application
Outcome
The first to third Respondents' Notice of Motion was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'impecunious Litigant in Person' 'civil Enforcement' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act Permit Conditions' 'issue Estoppel and Res Judicata' 'public Interest Litigation' 'strike Out or Stay']
['practice and Procedure' 'environmental Law' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage'] ['security for Costs' 'impecunious Litigant in Person' 'civil Enforcement' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act Permit Conditions' 'issue Estoppel and Res Judicata' 'public Interest Litigation' 'strike Out or Stay']

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 Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Concerning Alleged Breaches of a S 87 Permit / Notice of Motion by the First to Third Respondents Seeking Security for Costs and Strike Out or Permanent Stay of Paragraph 6 of the Amended Class 4 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant should be ordered to provide security for the first to third Respondents' costs." 'Whether paragraph 6 of the amended class 4 application, claiming that Permit 1468 is nugatory and of no effect, should be struck out or permanently stayed because it had already been determined in earlier proceedings.' 'Whether the proceedings involved a sufficient public interest element and special personal interest by the Applicant to justify refusing security for costs.' 'Whether delay in bringing the security for costs application weighed against granting security.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because the Applicant's circumstances were significantly different from Melville: he claimed a special Aboriginal customary responsibility and had express entitlements under the Permit, an order for security would likely stifle the litigation, the motion was belated given the known history of his impecuniosity, and the proceedings had a strong public interest element in enforcing rigorous permit conditions concerning Aboriginal objects. The strike out or stay application was refused because the present claim that the Permit had become nugatory through alleged breaches in implementation was sufficiently different in law and fact from the earlier unsuccessful...

Court Disposition

The first to third Respondents' Notice of Motion was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • ["The first to third Respondents' Notice of Motion filed 4 September 2003 be dismissed." 'The Question of costs be reserved.' 'The parties have leave to obtain from the Registrar a hearing date for the final hearing of the proceedings.']