FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Brisbane Airport Corporation Limited ACN 076 870 650 v Wright [2002] FCA 370 BRISBANE AIRPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, ACN 076 870 650 v DEPUTY PRESIDENT C R WRIGHT AS A PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, KEVIN RUDD and MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES Q 198 OF 2001 DOWSETT J 28 MARCH 2002 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 198 OF 2001 BETWEEN: BRISBANE AIRPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, ACN 076 870 650 APPLICANT AND: DEPUTY PRESIDENT C R WRIGHT AS A PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT KEVIN RUDD SECOND RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE OF ORDER: 28 MARCH 2002 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 198 OF 2001 BETWEEN: BRISBANE AIRPORT CORPORATION LIMITED, ACN 076 870 650 APPLICANT AND: DEPUTY PRESIDENT C R WRIGHT AS A PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL FIRST RESPONDENT KEVIN RUDD SECOND RESPONDENT MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 28 MARCH 2002 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The second respondent, having been unsuccessful in these proceedings, it would normally follow that he ought pay the costs of them. However he submits that for a number of reasons, that should not be the case. Firstly, he submits that his claim is brought on behalf of the community and seeks to uphold a community interest. In a broad factual sense that may be correct. However parties who seek to represent such broad interests must be aware that they expose themselves to the risk of costs. It would be unfair to other parties to the litigation to allow some general exception in a case of that kind. 2 In any event, the process for developing a master plan of the sort with which I have been concerned here, involves a substantial amount of input, including input from relevant local authorities. There seems to me to be no reason to believe that they will not, to the extent appropriate for a project of this kind, represent the interests of affected residents. It is also said that the informal nature of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings is inconsistent with the parties being exposed to orders for costs in review proceedings. The AAT process may be informal, but it must proceed in accordance with law. It is the failure to so proceed which attracts judicial review. 3 The second respondent points out that in the AAT, proceedings were conducted in accordance with the decision in Allan. It is true that the approach adopted by the High Court in that case differed substantially from that adopted in the Full Court. The High Court's judgment was not available until after the decision in the AAT had been delivered. Nonetheless, as between the parties the merits or otherwise arising from that fact are equal. It is not a basis for visiting the consequences upon the applicant rather than the second respondent. 4 Finally, it is said that the resources of the applicant are substantial, whilst the second respondent is merely a private person. That is no doubt true, but there is no general principle or compelling reason of policy which should lead the Court to favour one litigant against another based upon financial resources. In many cases that would do nothing more than invite an otherwise irrelevant investigation of the assets of those who come before us. 5 In the circumstances I see no reason why the usual order should not be made. I will order that the second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings including reserved costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 21 June 2002 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques The Second Respondent appeared In Person. Date of Hearing: 28 March 2002 Date of Judgment: 28 March 2002