Lester Land Holdings Pty Ltd v The Development Assessment Commission (No 2)

The case of Lester Land Holdings Pty Ltd v The Development Assessment Commission (No 2) involves a dispute over the allocation of costs in a judicial review proceeding. The applicants, Lester Land Holdings, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Development Assessment Commission (DAC), the second respondent in this case. The primary focus of the case was on the principles governing the award of costs in cases where a successful party has not prevailed on all issues. The applicants argued for a deviation from the general rule that costs follow the event, while the DAC contended that there were no special circumstances justifying a deviation from this principle.

The court was required to decide whether the general rule that costs follow the event should be modified in light of the applicants' partial success in the judicial review proceedings. The DAC argued that the applicants should bear the costs of the issues on which they failed, while the applicants sought a more equitable distribution of costs. The court had to balance the principles of cost allocation against the need to discourage parties from bringing claims of doubtful merit and to ensure the efficient resolution of litigation.

The court, in applying the well-established principles governing the award of costs, recognised that while the general rule is that costs follow the event, there are circumstances where the court may exercise its discretion to modify this rule. The court referred to the principles articulated in A, DC v Prince Alfred College Inc (No 2) and Playford Vineyard Pty Ltd v Wishford Nominees Pty Ltd (No 4), which emphasise that the interests of justice sometimes require a reduction in the costs that would otherwise be awarded to a successful party when that party has failed on particular disputed questions of fact or law. The court acknowledged that the legal profession has a duty to advise on the relative merits of the possible claims and defences and on the cost and time implications of pursuing those claims. The court concluded that the applicants should bear the costs of the issues on which they failed, given the lack of special circumstances justifying a deviation from the general rule.

The final orders of the court were that the applicants bear the costs of the issues on which they failed, reflecting the principle that costs ordinarily follow the event unless special circumstances justify a different order. The court did not find any special circumstances in this case that would warrant a deviation from the general rule.