Australian Conservation Foundation & Ors v Forestry Commission & Ors [1988] FCA 225

SIUDGMENT No. 225788 _

CATCHWORDS

COSTS - Whether successful respondent in Judicial Review matter should be penalized for unsuccessful arguments on locus standi and as to whether there was an administrative decision - Hughes v. Western Australian Cricket Association (1986) A.T.P.R. at 48,136-7 applied - Intervener not necessarily entitled to costs, though successful - Discussion of liability of "public interest" bodies to costs orders, with reference to the problem of individuals risking costs in public interest suits (Kent v. Cavanagh 1 A.C.T.R. at 55) - Rejection of claim to a costs order made by members of a tribunal alleged to have denied natural justice (Ex parte Hardiman 144 C.L.R. at 17, 35-6 referred to), and order made for costs as submitting respondents.

Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 - s.43

AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION & ORS. -V- FORESTRY COMMISSION & ORS.

No. TG 14 of 1987

Burchett J. Sydney 3 May 1988

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. TG14 of 1987

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, the WILDERNESS SOCIETY INC. and TASMANIAN CONSERVATION TRUST INC.

Applicants

lz Zz iw]

FORESTRY COMMISSION

First Respondent

E Zz o

MICHAEL MANIFOLD HELSHAM, ROBERT HENRY WALLACE, PETER PHILLIP HITCHCOCK

Second Respondents

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDERS OF THE COURT

Judge Making Orders: Burchett J.

Where Made: Sydney

Date of Orders: 3 May 1988

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

{1) The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent,

but not to include any costs in respect of the appearance in court on Wednesday 17 February 1988.

(2) The applicants pay the costs of Gunns Kilndried Timber Industries Limited.

(3) The applicants pay the costs of the second respondents, as submitting respondents.

2.

(4) No order as to the costs of the third respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia.