Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Wilderness Society Inc. v The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.

Country/Territory
Australia
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Nov 30, 2007
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Federal Court of Australia
Seat of court
Hobart
Judge
Marshall.
Reference number
[2007] FCA 1863
Language
English
Subject
Environment gen., Mineral resources, Legal questions, Forestry
Keyword
Protection of habitats Forestry protection measures Forest management/forest conservation Social forestry/community forestry Forest service/forest officers
Abstract
The Wilderness Society Inc (TWS) applied under ss 5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), seeking judicial review of two administrative decisions made by the first respondent, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Minister), pursuant to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). Those decisions concerned the construction and operation of a pulp mill at Bell Bay, Tasmania. The second respondent, Gunns Limited, was made a party to the proceeding on the application of TWS by reason of its interest in the construction and operation of the pulp mill. Judgment in the substantive proceeding in this case was published on 9 August 2007. The Court dismissed the application wholly in favour of the first and second respondents. In that judgment, orders as to costs were reserved and an order made that the parties file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within 21 days of the primary judgment. Written submissions were received from the parties. The Court made the usual costs order in favour of the wholly successful respondents. The settled practice of this Court, save where exceptional special circumstances apply, has been to order that costs follow the event. The ‘public interest’ is a legitimate basis for departing from the usual order if it can be shown that, upon further examination, there are sufficient reasons connected with or leading up to the case or special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the usual order. Each case must turn on its facts and the relevant considerations through which it may be found appropriate to depart from the usual order are not closed. TWS points to a number of factors or special circumstances that support its contentions including: the protection of the environment; the proper administration of the EPBC Act; its altruistic motives in commencing the proceeding under the extended standing provisions of the EPBC Act; and the importance of not discouraging access to the courts. These considerations are all relevant. However, they could be common to many other proceedings challenging matters of public administration or matters concerning the protection of the environment. They are insufficient to wholly displace both respondents’ legitimate expectations that, having enjoyed complete success, they would be awarded their costs.
Full text
COU-156719.pdf