Oshlack v Richmond River Council
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Neutral Citation | 1998-0225 HCA C,[1998] HCA 11 |
| Date | 1998 |
| Court | High Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
1200 cases
6 firm's commentaries
-
Offers of compromise and Calderbank offers in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and costs ramifications
...Court Civil Procedure Act 1932. A successful litigant is generally entitled to an award of costs (Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 per McHugh J at To place yourself in optimal position to apply for costs, it is best practice to make any offer, be it a Calderbank offer or a......
-
Public interest litigation in NSW: recap on costs
...to the development of the public interest litigation exception arises from the High Court decision in Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11. The majority of the High Court (but by only a slim majority - 3:2) accepted that the public interest character of litigation was relevant to ......
-
Planning and Environment Court in Queensland awards costs after relevant development application is withdrawn
...bear their own costs" (see [18]). The Court also referred to His Honour Justice McHugh's statement in Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 that "costs are not awarded to punish the unsuccessful party. The primary purpose of an award of costs is to indemnify the successful party" (......
-
Judge denies legal costs recovery in court win
...towards the legal costs of the successful party. This is reflected in the High Court's observation in Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, at 96 that 'by far the most important factor which courts have viewed as guiding the exercise of the costs discretion is the result of th......
Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
-
Litigation
...NSWCA 274. 1109 Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 at 11, per Bray CJ. 1110 UCPR rule 42.1. See also Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 at [63]–[67], per McHugh J; Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 486 at [5]–[9], per Hislop J; Sural......
-
THE CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF COMMON LAW PROPERTY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES IN ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES.
...3 NZLR 463 at 471, [1997] NZRMA 501 (HC). (68) See ibid at 469. (69) Ibid at 473. (70) See ibid at 472; Oshlack v Richmond River Council, [1998] HCA 11 at para 48, 193 CLR 72, 152 ALR 83; West Coast ENT Inc v Buller Coal Ltd, [2013] NZSC 133. Compare Lockridge v Ontario (Director, Ministry ......
-
SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2013 —“THE RULE OF LAW AS A MANY COLOURED DREAM COAT”
...Mason J; O'Sullivan v Farrer(1989) 168 CLR 210 at 216, per Mason CJ and Brennan, Dawson and Gaudron JJ; Oshlack v Richmond River Council(1998) 193 CLR 72 at 84, [31], per Gaudron and Gummow JJ. 51R v Anderson, ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd(1965) 113 CLR 177 at 189. 52FAI Insurances Ltd v Winnek......
-
Constitutional Law and the Limits of Discretion in Family Property Law
...CLR 513, a t 537; see also Wilson and Dawson JJ at 533. Brennan J’s dictum was cited with approval in Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 86 [35] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ). 64 Bishop and Bishop [2013] FamCAFC 138, [28]. See above, text accompanying n.20. 65 (2011) 243 CLR 181.......
Request a trial to view additional results