Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 3) [2012] FCA 744 Citation: Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 3) [2012] FCA 744
Parties: KEVIN BUZZACOTT v MINISTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES, BHP BILLITON OLYMPIC DAM CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 007 835 761) and STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
File number: SAD 39 of 2012
Judge: BESANKO J
Date of judgment: 13 July 2012
Catchwords: COSTS – where applicant challenged ministerial approval of Olympic Dam expansion under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) – whether litigation brought in public interest – whether discretion to depart from ordinary costs rule should be exercised – whether novel or important question of law raised – s 43 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Held: There be no order as to the costs of the application.
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 12 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ss 130, 133 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 (SA)
Cases cited: Bat Advocacy NSW Inc v Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts and Anor (No 2) (2011) 280 ALR 91, cited Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and Others (2008) 165 FCR 211, cited Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (2008) 167 FCR 463, cited Buzzacott v Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (No 2) (2012) 126 ALD 335; [2012] FCA 403, cited Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts and Anor (2009) 165 LGERA 203, cited Lawyers for Forests Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts and Anor (2009) 178 FCR 385, cited Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, cited Ruddock v Vadarlis & Others (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229, cited Save the Ridge Inc (Association No AO3329) v Commonwealth and Anor (2006) 230 ALR 411, cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate