Leahy v Brisbane City Council (No 2)

In Leahy v Brisbane City Council (No 2), the applicant, Leahy, challenged the Brisbane City Council's decision to approve the construction of an advertising sign, which was owned by the second respondent. The first respondent, the Council, defended the application with substantial arguments, while the second respondent supported the Council's position but did not present any additional arguments or evidence beyond those made by the Council. Leahy's application was successful, and the Council was found to be at fault. The issue before the court was whether the second respondent should also be ordered to pay Leahy's costs of the application.

The court examined the nature of the second respondent's involvement in the proceedings and found that while they had a legitimate interest in the application, their role was limited to supporting the Council's arguments and evidence. The real parties in interest were Leahy and the Council. The court considered relevant authorities, including Thiess Watkins White Construction (in liq) v Witan Nominees (1985) Pty Ltd, which highlighted the importance of distinguishing between parties with a legitimate interest and those who are the real combatants in the proceedings. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the second respondent should not be ordered to pay Leahy's costs.

The court ordered the Council to pay Leahy's costs of the application on the standard basis. There was no order as to costs between Leahy and the second respondent, as well as between Leahy and the third respondent. The decision underscores the importance of identifying the real parties in interest in proceedings and the need to consider the nature of each party's involvement when determining costs orders.