Cox v Brisbane City Council (No 2)

The case before the court was Cox v Brisbane City Council (No 2), where the Brisbane City Council sought approval for a development. The applicants, who owned adjoining rental properties, objected to the development on grounds of amenity impacts. The council, as the successful applicant, sought costs from the unsuccessful objectors, who were the appellants in this case. The appellants had taken professional advice on the prospects of their objection, and their conduct was deemed reasonable.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellants' ownership of adjoining rental properties constituted a relevant commercial interest, the weight to be given to that interest, and the relative strength of the appellants' case. The court had to consider the nature of the parties' interests, the reasonableness of the appellants' conduct, and whether a respectable unitary case had been presented. Additionally, the court was to determine the costs of the unsuccessful costs application.

The court found that the appellants' ownership of adjoining rental properties did constitute a relevant commercial interest, but the weight to be given to that interest was limited. The court noted that not all appellants were likely to suffer significant amenity impacts, but a respectable unitary case had been presented. The appellants' conduct was deemed reasonable, and they had taken professional advice on the prospects of their objection. Consequently, the court determined that the council, as the successful applicant, should not be awarded costs against the appellants, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the proceeding, including their own costs of the application for costs.