Oshlack v Richmond River Council

Last updated

Oshlack v Richmond River Council
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameOshlack v Richmond River Council
Decided1998
Citation(s)193 CLR 72
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
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingBrennan CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, and Kirby JJ

Oshlack v Richmond River Council is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Contents

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

Pictured: a photograph of Evans Head in 2017 Storm On The Horizon.jpg
Pictured: a photograph of Evans Head in 2017

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

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

Related Research Articles

A class action, also known as a class-action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff demands a legal or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

In law, a settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case, reached either before or after court action begins. A collective settlement is a settlement of multiple similar legal cases. The term also has other meanings in the context of law. Structured settlements provide for future periodic payments, instead of a one time cash payment.

In law, ex parte is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

Judiciary of Egypt Legal system of the Arab Republic of Egypt

The judicial system of Egypt is an independent branch of the Egyptian government which includes both secular and religious courts.

In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes. The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement.

Tort reform Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform refers to changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

Legal financing is the mechanism or process through which litigants can finance their litigation or other legal costs through a third party funding company.

Doctrine of bias in Singapore law Principle of appellate law in Singapore

Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.

Administrative law in Singapore Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Illegality in Singapore administrative law Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<i>House v The King</i>

House v The King is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy</i>

Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

McDonald v Horn [1995] 1 All ER 961 is an English trusts law case on pensions, relevant for UK labour law. It enables the beneficiaries of a pension fund to be indemnified for costs in bringing actions for breach of trust, fiduciary duty or the duty of care against the trustees or directors of a pension fund.

References

  1. 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=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  2. Note: data is as of September 2020
  3. Kirby J, at [103]
  4. Kirby J at [134]
  5. Gaudron & Gummow JJ at [40]