Hollier v Australian Maritime Safety Authority (No 2) [1998] FCA 975

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRactice and procedure – costs – losing party with limited financial means – alleged public interest litigation – whether relevant that respondents are public bodies

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43(2) Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 152 ALR 83 distinguished

Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77 followed

Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 referred to Australian Conservation Foundation v Forestry Commission (1988) 81 ALR 166 at 171 referred to Loveday v Sun Newspapers Ltd (1938) 59 CLR 503 at 413 mentioned Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1977] 2 NSWLR 749 at 777 mentioned London Artists Ltd v Littler [1968] WLR 607 at 619 mentioned

WILLIAM HOLLIER & ANOR V AUSTRALIAN MARITIME SAFETY

AUTHORITY & oRS (NO 2)

NOS. VG 667 of 1997 and VG 116 OF 1998

JUDGES: HEEREY, WHITLAM and north jj

DATE: 14 AUGUST 1998

PLACE: MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

victorian DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 667 of 1997

vG 116 of 1998

BETWEEN: WILLIAM HOLLIER

FIRST APPELLANT

THE ENGEN INSTITUTE

(ARBN: a25398a)

SECOND APPELLANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN MARITIME SAFETY AUTHORITY

first Respondent

STATE OF TASMANIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR WORKPLACE RELATIONS

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES: HEEREY, WHITLAM AND NORTH JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 14 AUGUST 1998

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellants pay the costs of the respondents of the application for leave to appeal in VG 667 of 1997 and the appeal VG 116 of 1998. 2. The costs of VG 184 of 1998 will be payable in accordance with O 52 r 19 of the Federal Court Rules. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.