Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Executive (Planning and Land Authority) (No 2)

In Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Executive (Planning and Land Authority) (No 2), the applicant, Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc, sought to avoid paying the respondent's costs. The dispute arose from an earlier decision where the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The applicant argued that a personal undertaking for security for costs by a Mr Ross, who was expressly denied party status, created a manifest injustice and a serious breach of judicial power, as he was bound by a court order but denied standing and the right to be heard. The matter was heard by Refshauge ACJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be relieved from the usual order that costs follow the event, specifically in circumstances where a non-party, Mr Ross, had provided an undertaking for costs and was now allegedly suffering prejudice due to his exclusion from the proceedings. The court was required to consider the applicant's submissions that the litigation was in the public interest and whether this, or the alleged injustice to Mr Ross, constituted sufficient grounds to depart from the general rule regarding costs. The court also had to determine the proper application of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) and the applicant's standing to make submissions on behalf of Mr Ross.

Refshauge ACJ found that the applicant's submissions regarding Mr Ross's alleged injustice were disingenuous, noting that the applicant's robust defence of Mr Ross indicated the submissions were either made by Mr Ross or on his behalf, thus contradicting the claim that he was denied a hearing. The court also observed that the applicant's reliance on rule 210 of the Court Procedures Rules was misplaced as the rule did not apply to the proceedings. The court affirmed the long-standing legal principle that costs generally follow the event, meaning the successful party is entitled to their costs. While acknowledging that this discretion should not be narrowly construed, the court emphasised that departing from the general rule requires proper reasons. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify such a departure, particularly in light of the applicant's own conduct and the misapplication of procedural rules.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.