Sarah Spottiswood (led by S Holt KC) appeared for the applicant in proceeding No 2105 of 2022.
Roger Traves KC, Stewart Webster KC and Salwa Marsh, appeared for the second respondent in all proceedings.
David Chesterman KC (led by Scott McLeod KC) represented the third respondent in all proceedings.
The proceeding follows Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier [2023] QSC 95 where the Court dismissed the applications for review of a decision made by the Deputy Premier to “call-in” a development application made by Wanless Recycling Park Pty Ltd (Wanless). The parties had now provided written submissions on the costs of applications.
The main issue in this case was whether the Wanless (the second respondent) and the Deputy Premier (the first respondent) could both receive an award for costs.
Freeburn J held that the Statham Principles did not apply as it was reasonable for the first and second respondents to seek independent legal advice and advocacy. Additionally, the litigation was conducted efficiently between the teams, and the parties co-operated to provide the bundle of evidence. For these reasons Freeburn J ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents, with the exception of the first respondent’s costs in proceeding 2192 of 2022 as the first respondent did not seek costs.
Additionally, as the Council (the third respondent) as an unsuccessful party was to bear a proportion of the additional costs attributable to its involvement. Thus, the Council was ordered to pay the costs of the second respondent but limited to 10% of those costs in proceeding 2105 of 2022 and 2198 of 2022.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
