Mees v Kemp (No 2) [2004] FCA 549

Mees v Kemp (No 2) [2004] FCA 549

Given the applicant's entirely unsuccessful challenge, but recognizing the public interest aspect, the applicant's commendable conduct, and factors both supporting and opposing costs, justice is served by requiring the applicant to pay fifty percent of the first respondent's costs, with no order for the costs concerning written contentions on costs.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Andrew Mees; First Respondent: David Kemp (in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage); Second Respondent: Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Substantive Application
Outcome
Applicant to pay fifty percent of the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the substantive application; no order as to costs regarding preparation of written contentions concerning costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Review, Extension of Time
Administrative Law Environmental Law Practice and Procedure Costs Public Interest Litigation Judicial Review Extension of Time

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Andrew Mees

Applicant

David Kemp (in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage)

First Respondent

Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should costs be awarded against an unsuccessful applicant in public interest litigation?
  2. 2 Is there justification for departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event in this case?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant's entirely unsuccessful challenge, but recognizing the public interest aspect, the applicant's commendable conduct, and factors both supporting and opposing costs, justice is served by requiring the applicant to pay fifty percent of the first respondent's costs, with no order for the costs concerning written contentions on costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay fifty percent of the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the substantive application; no order as to costs regarding preparation of written contentions concerning costs.

Orders

  • The applicant pay fifty per cent of the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the substantive application, such costs be taxed in default of agreement.
  • There be no order as to costs in relation to the preparation of written contentions regarding costs.