Tasmanian Conservation Trust inc. v Minister for Resources & Anor [1995] FCA 50

Tasmanian Conservation Trust inc. v Minister for Resources & Anor [1995] FCA 50

Because the applicant failed on the severable in-principle approval issue, some allowance had to be made against its costs, but the additional hearing and preparation time attributable to that issue was relatively modest and a precise time apportionment was neither feasible nor sensible; taking all relevant factors into account, the respondents were required to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs. Gunns was not relieved from sharing the costs because, after joinder, it chose to participate and oppose relief substantially as the Minister did, thereby taking the risk of an adverse costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs After Judgment on an Application Challenging a Decision to Grant an Export Licence and an in Principle Approval for Export of Woodchips / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Judgment Delivered on 10 January 1995
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, shared equally as between the first and second respondents.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'apportionment of Costs' 'partial Success' 'export Licence for Woodchips' 'in Principle Approval']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'environmental Law'] ['costs Discretion' 'apportionment of Costs' 'partial Success' 'export Licence for Woodchips' 'in Principle Approval']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Costs After Judgment on an Application Challenging a Decision to Grant an Export Licence and an in Principle Approval for Export of Woodchips / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After Judgment Delivered on 10 January 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive all, half, two-thirds, or another proportion of its costs after succeeding on the export licence issue but failing on the in-principle approval issue' 'Whether the failure on the in-principle approval issue was severable from the successful challenge to the export licence' 'Whether the first and second respondents should share any costs order equally or whether the first respondent should bear the whole burden as between respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant failed on the severable in-principle approval issue, some allowance had to be made against its costs, but the additional hearing and preparation time attributable to that issue was relatively modest and a precise time apportionment was neither feasible nor sensible; taking all relevant factors into account, the respondents were required to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs. Gunns was not relieved from sharing the costs because, after joinder, it chose to participate and oppose relief substantially as the Minister did, thereby taking the risk of an adverse costs order.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs, shared equally as between the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • ["The respondents are to pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs." 'The first and second respondents, as between themselves, are to share the costs to be paid to the applicant equally.']