K Edwards, “Costs and Public Interest Litigation After Oshlack v Richmond River Council” (1999) 21 Sydney Law Review 680 at 686-690
SAVE THE RIDGE INC (ASSOCIATION NO A03329) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ACD 7 OF 2005
BLACK CJ, MOORE AND EMMETT JJ SYDNEY 18 APRIL 2006
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 7 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SAVE THE RIDGE INC (ASSOCIATION NO A03329) APPELLANT
AND:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, MOORE AND EMMETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
18 APRIL 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 7 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
SAVE THE RIDGE INC (ASSOCIATION NO A03329) APPELLANT
AND:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA FIRST RESPONDENT
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BLACK CJ, MOORE AND EMMETT JJ
DATE:
18 APRIL 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Judgment was delivered in this appeal by the Full Court on 16 September 2005: Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2005] FCAFC 203. This judgment concerns the costs of the appeal. Before judgment was delivered, the appellant, Save the Ridge Incorporated, had argued (in its written submissions in reply) that if it failed in the appeal, there should be no order as to costs. In subsequent written submissions the respondents, the National Capital Authority (an agency of the Commonwealth), and the Australian Capital Territory, have sought orders that the appellant pay their costs of the appeal either in whole or in part.
Before discussing the applicable principles, brief reference should be made to aspects of the history of the litigation leading to the judgment of 16 September 2005. The appellant's application was filed on 10 June 2004. On 27 July 2004, the appellant made an urgent application for interlocutory injunctive relief. The urgent relief was refused by Stone J on 30 July 2004: Save the Ridge v National Capital Authority [2004] FCA 996. On the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2006] FCAFC 51
Case
[2006] FCAFC 51
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Save the Ridge Inc, a not-for-profit organisation, sought to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court which had dismissed its claims against the Commonwealth for loss of native vegetation and environmental damage caused by the construction of a rail corridor. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had standing to bring the action and, if so, whether the action was an authorised public proceeding for the purposes of the Commonwealth’s statutory immunity from damages for economic loss. The court found that the appellant did not have standing to bring the action because it had not demonstrated that it suffered a special injury different in kind from that suffered by the public generally. The court held that even if the appellant had standing, the action was not an authorised public proceeding for the purposes of the statutory immunity, as the appellant had not shown that the action was authorised by law. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.