Snowy River Alliance Inc v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1132

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Snowy River Alliance Inc v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1132 Hearing dates: On written submissions Decision date: 22 September 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law Before: Hislop J Decision: Each party to bear its costs of the summons filed on 23 July 2010. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Engadine Area Traffic Action Group Inc v Sutherland Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 434; (2004) 136 LGERA 365 Minister for Planning v Walker (No 2) [2008] NSWCA 334 Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd and Minister for Mineral Resources (No 3) [2010] NSWLEC 59; (2010) 173 LGERA 280 Category: Costs Parties: Snowy River Alliance Inc (Plaintiff) Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (1st Defendant) Snowy Hydro Limited (2nd Defendant) Representation: K. Ruddock (Plaintiff) C. Norton (1st Defendant) I. Pike (2nd Defendant) The Environmental Defender's Office (Plaintiff) NSW Office of Water (1st Defendant) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (2nd Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/245123

Judgment

Introduction 1The plaintiff is an incorporated association and is an active conservation group. It sought administrative law relief against the defendants by summons filed on 23 July 2010. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's application. The application was unsuccessful and the summons was dismissed. The issues arising in the proceedings are detailed in the primary judgment. 2At the request of the parties the costs of the summons were reserved. Written submissions concerning costs have been received from each of the parties. 3The defendants each sought an order that their costs be paid by the plaintiff. They relied upon the general rule that costs should follow the event ("the usual order")- s 98(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, UCPR 42.1. 4The plaintiff submitted "some other order should be made" namely each party should bear its own costs - UCPR 42.1. It contended such an order was appropriate as the proceedings had been brought in the public interest.