Gregcarbil Pty Ltd v Backus (No. 3)

Gregcarbil Pty Ltd sought indemnity costs against Backus for expenses incurred following reliance on advice provided by a departmental officer. This advice was subsequently found to be incorrect. The dispute arose from the applicant's attempt to obtain permits for mining activities, which was hindered by conflicting regulatory requirements under the Mining Rehabilitation Act and the Environment Protection Act. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant was entitled to recover the costs due to the incorrect advice and the lack of an application for costs when the advice was provided.

The court examined the circumstances under which the applicant had acted upon the advice and the nature of the advice itself. It considered whether the advice was given in good faith and whether the applicant had any reasonable basis for relying on it. The court also assessed the conflict between the statutory objectives of the MRA and the EPA and how this conflict might have contributed to the issuance of incorrect advice. Additionally, the court scrutinized whether the applicant had followed proper procedural steps, including lodging an application for costs at the appropriate time, to be eligible for indemnity.

In its judgment, the court found that while the advice provided by the departmental officer was indeed incorrect, the applicant's reliance on it was not unreasonable given the context. However, the court held that there was no entitlement to indemnity costs because the applicant had not lodged an application for costs at the time the advice was given. The court concluded that the failure to do so meant the applicant had not met the procedural requirements necessary to claim indemnity costs. As such, the application for indemnity costs was dismissed, and no orders were made regarding costs.