Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Lawyers for Forests Inc. v Minister for the Environment Heritage and the Arts.

Pays/Territoire
Australie
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Mai 8, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Federal Court of Australia
Siège de la cour
Melbourne
Juge
Tracey.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques, Mer, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Pollution de la mer Gestion des zones côtières Accès-à-la-justice Pollution marine (d'origine tellurique)
Résumé
The Court had dismissed an application by Lawyers for Forests Inc to impugn a decision of the Minister to grant conditional approval for the Gunns pulp mill in Bell Bay, Tasmania. The Court gave LFF the opportunity to provide submissions as to why costs should not be in the usual order. The ordinary rule is that costs should follow the event. There is no general public interest exception to the ordinary rule . LFF argued that the circumstances of the case warranted a departure from the ordinary costs rule because: LFF was seeking to enforce the objects of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) the litigation was in the public interest; there were exceptional and special circumstances, including that the case concerned untested provisions of the Act; LFF is a non-profit organisation, carrying out activities useful to the community; and an adverse cost order might result in the winding up of LFF. LFF argued that the issues raised in the application were of significant public interest and concern; and that one of the objects of the legislation is to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, land-holders and indigenous peoples (s 3 (1)(d) of the Act). LFF also argued that the organisation did not stand to benefit financially from the litigation. The Judge found that there is no general public interest exception to the operation of the ordinary costs rule. He found that the concept of 'public interest' is difficult to define. He said that a distinction should be made between the public interest and a matter of interest to the public. The relevant interest is to the public generally, not the individual or individuals. He also explained that there may be competing public interests - such as the lawfulness of determinations made by executive government, particularly where public funds are involved. His Honour rejected the submission that it was a test case as it did not raise novel issues and LFF relied on well established judicial review principles. He said that 'it is necessary for an unsuccessful party who wishes to obtain a more beneficial costs order to point to particular aspects of the litigation which warrant the orders sought'. He also found that LFF’s capacity to meet a costs order was a not a relevant consideration in determining whether an order should be made.
Texte intégral
COU-156674.pdf