(High Court of Australia) The appellant had been concerned about the habitat of the endangered Koala, and complained about the absence of any fauna impact statement before a planning consent to development was granted. The judge at first instance had considered that there were ‘sufficient special circumstances to justify a departure from the ordinary rule as to costs’. These were to be found in the following considerations: (i) The appellant had nothing to gain from the litigation ‘other than the worthy motive of seeking to uphold environmental law and the preservation of endangered fauna’; (ii) A significant number of members of the public shared the appellant’s stance, so that in that sense there was a public interest in the outcome of the litigation; (iii) The challenge had raised and resolved significant issues as to the interpretation and future administration of statutory provisions relating to the protection of endangered fauna and the present and future administration of the development consent in question, which had implications for the council, the developer and the public.’
Held: The judgment at first instance was restored.
Citations:
[1998] HCA 11
Cited by:
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Costs
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223264