Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 238

Edwards v Santos Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 238

Given the applicants had early notice of a jurisdictional challenge, sufficient resources, and chose not to bring their application within a substantive native title claim, and taking into account the 'spirit' of s 85A but finding it does not outweigh the usual rule nor intermediate appellate authority, the Court exercised its discretion to order that costs follow the event.

Parties
Applicant: Noelene Margaret Edwards; Applicant: Clancy McKellar; Applicant: Iona Dawn Smith; Applicant: Ernest (Hope) Ebsworth; Applicant: Rosemary (Rose) Anne Wilson; Applicant: Margaret Anne Collins; Applicant: Sharleen Louise Knight; Applicant: Archie Alfred Ebsworth; First Respondent: Santos Limited; Second Respondent: State of Queensland; Third Respondent: Dehli Petroleum Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Post Dismissal Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs ordered against applicants
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion, Standing, Jurisdiction, Native Title Act S 85 a
Civil Procedure Native Title Costs Discretion Standing Jurisdiction Native Title Act S 85 a

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noelene Margaret Edwards

Applicant

Clancy McKellar

Applicant

Iona Dawn Smith

Applicant

Ernest (Hope) Ebsworth

Applicant

Rosemary (Rose) Anne Wilson

Applicant

Margaret Anne Collins

Applicant

Sharleen Louise Knight

Applicant

Archie Alfred Ebsworth

Applicant

Santos Limited

First Respondent

State of Queensland

Second Respondent

Dehli Petroleum Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Post Dismissal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event in native title related proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the 'spirit' of Native Title Act s 85A affects the discretion under Federal Court of Australia Act s 43 to award costs.
  3. 3 Applicants' standing and Court's jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicants had early notice of a jurisdictional challenge, sufficient resources, and chose not to bring their application within a substantive native title claim, and taking into account the 'spirit' of s 85A but finding it does not outweigh the usual rule nor intermediate appellate authority, the Court exercised its discretion to order that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against applicants

Orders

  • The applicants pay the first and third respondents' costs of and incidental to the application, including the summary judgment application, to be taxed.