Altitude Corporation Pty Ltd v Isaac Regional Council (No 2)

In the case of Altitude Corporation Pty Ltd v Isaac Regional Council (No 2), the appellant, Altitude, was involved in a dispute over a planning decision made by the respondent, Isaac Regional Council. The matter was before the court to determine whether the council should bear the costs of the proceedings, given Altitude's successful appeal. The legal issues at the core of the case revolved around the council's prospects of success and its conduct in the proceedings, including the council's refusal to settle and the reasonableness of its expert opinions.

The court examined whether the council had reasonable prospects of success in its defence, despite ultimately losing the appeal. This involved assessing the supportability of the expert opinions provided by the town planner engaged by the council. Additionally, the court scrutinized whether the council acted reasonably by refusing to settle the matter before the appeal was heard. The court's analysis involved weighing the merits of the case, the council's conduct, and the reasonableness of its position throughout the proceedings.

The court concluded that the council, although unsuccessful, had reasonable prospects of success and acted reasonably in its defence. The expert opinions provided by the council's town planner were deemed supportable, and the refusal to settle was not unreasonable given the circumstances. As a result, the court determined that the respondent should not be penalised with costs and that each party should bear its own costs. This decision highlights the importance of the council's reasonable prospects of success and conduct in determining costs, even in the face of an unsuccessful appeal.