The applicant sought removal of a caveat under s 28(3) of the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2018 and other orders, including costs. Although, the caveat had been withdraw upon the commencement of the hearing, and as such submissions were heard on the matter of costs only.
The applicant submitted that there had been no substantive caveatable interest, and that the application was necessary since the caveat had been maintained until a very late stage, consequently seeking costs against the respondent. In contrast, the respondent argued that the application was unnecessary and premature, and that the parties should bear their own costs. Relevant statutory provisions supported the Court’s discretion to make any costs order it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Court found that the applicant was within its rights to seek removal of the caveat, and had not acted unreasonably in proceeding with its application. The application was allowed and a Costs Order was made against the respondent.
The judgement is available here.