Oshlack v Richmond River Council
| Oshlack v Richmond River Council | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1] |
| Decided | 1998 |
| Citation | 193 CLR 72 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Brennan CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, and Kirby JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| The trial judge's discretion not to award costs against the public interest litigant ought be upheld Gaudron & Gummow JJ Kirby J dissenting Brennan CJ McHugh J | |
Oshlack v Richmond River Council is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
The case is notable for its statements regarding costs orders in the context of public interest litigation. Its facts concerned an application for costs against an unsuccessful litigant in a case relevant to the public interest.
The High Court decided by majority that the discretion of the trial judge not to make a costs order against Oshlack ought be upheld.
Oshlack is an important case in Australian civil procedure. It is the 23rd most cited High Court case according to LawCite.[1][2]
Facts
[edit]
The case facts concerned costs orders following an unsuccessful lawsuit by a Mr Oshlack against Richmond River Council. Oshlack contended that consent given by the council for a subdivision at Evans Head was void, due to breaching the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). He lost that lawsuit.
Subsequently, the council sought to recover legal costs from him. The trial judge, Justice Stein, determined that it was appropriate to make no order as to costs.[3] The Court of Appeal held that his decision had miscarried, for taking into account that the proceedings had been brought in the public interest; which was held by the court to be an irrelevant consideration when making costs orders.
Oshlack subsequently obtained special leave to appeal at the High Court.
Judgement
[edit]By majority the High Court upheld the trial judge's discretion not to award costs. The fact that the case had been brought in the public interest was held not to be an irrelevant consideration.[4]
The court additionally emphasized the discretion available to trial judges, expressing that there is 'no absolute rule ... (that) a successful party is to be compensated by the unsuccessful party' following litigation.[5]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=§ion=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
- ^ Note: data is as of September 2020
- ^ Kirby J, at [103]
- ^ Kirby J at [134]
- ^ Gaudron & Gummow JJ at [40]