Lansen & Ors v NT Minister for Mines and Energy & Ors

[2007] NTSC 36

Lansen & Ors v NT Minister for Mines and Energy & Ors

[2007] NTSC 36

PARTIES:LANSEN, HARRY and OTHERS

v

NORTHERN TERRITORY MINISTER FOR MINES AND ENERGY

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

AND:

McARTHUR RIVER MINING PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING GENERAL JURISDICTION

FILE NO:157 OF 2006 (20632687)

DELIVERED:  25 MAY 2007

HEARING DATES:  –

JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:S Glacken

First and Second Defendants:      T Pauling QC and S Brownhill

Third Defendant:  G Gibson QC

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:R Levy, Principal Solicitor, Northern Land Council

First and Second Defendants:      Solicitor for the Northern Territory

Third Defendant:  Cridlands

Judgment category classification:    C

Judgment ID Number:  Ang200705A

Number of pages:  6

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Lansen & Ors v NT Minister for Mines and Energy & Ors

[2007] NTSC 36

No. 157 OF 2006 (20632687)

BETWEEN:

HARRY LANSEN and OTHERS

Plaintiffs

v

NORTHERN TERRITORY MINISTER FOR MINES AND ENERGY

First Defendant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF

AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

AND:

McARTHUR RIVER MINING PTY LTD

Third Defendant

CORAM:     ANGEL J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 25 May 2007)

1. On 30 April last I delivered reasons for judgment in this proceeding, concluding that Authorisation No. 0059–01 granted to the third defendant pursuant to s 35 Mining Management Act NT did not authorise the third defendant’s open cut mining operation at the McArthur River Mine and that the first defendant’s acceptance of an amended Mining Management Plan was of no effect because the Mining Management Plan was not in respect of the mining activities to which Authorisation No. 0059–01 related.

2. On 3 May I made Orders declaring that the decision of the first defendant to accept the Mining Management Plan dated 13 October 2006 and a Grant of Authorisation No. 0059–2 were invalid and of no effect.

3. The plaintiffs sought orders that the defendants pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings.  The question of costs was reserved with liberty to the parties to make written submissions as to the appropriate cost orders.  The last of those written submissions were received on 21 May. 

4. All the defendants submitted that the appropriate order for costs was that the defendants pay one–fifth of the plaintiffs’ costs on the basis that the case was decided on a narrow issue and neither side had been successful upon many issues which took up the bulk of the preparation and hearing time of five days as to which neither party should pay the other party’s costs.  The decisive issue at trial could have been disposed of within a day.

5. As a general rule the costs of proceedings are in the discretion of the Court: Order 63.03(1) Supreme Court Rules. Ordinarily costs follow the event. As a general rule a successful party is entitled to his or her costs in the absence of particular circumstances justifying some other order, such as costs in relation to a particular issue, whether of fact or…