Oshlack v Richmond River Council

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation1998-0225 HCA C,[1998] HCA 11
Year1998
Date1998
CourtHigh Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
1270 cases
3 firm's commentaries
  • Offers of compromise and Calderbank offers in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and costs ramifications
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 17 November 2012
    ...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
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 5 June 2020
    ...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 ......
  • Judge denies legal costs recovery in court win
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 17 August 2012
    ...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......
6 books & journal articles
  • Litigation
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...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......
  • SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW ANNUAL LECTURE 2013 —“THE RULE OF LAW AS A MANY COLOURED DREAM COAT”
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 44-1, March 2016
    • 1 March 2016
    ...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.......
  • PUBLIC INTEREST COSTS ORDERS IN FEDERAL CLASS ACTIONS: TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, April 2022
    • 1 April 2022
    ...J). (51) Latoudis (n 48) 540 (Mason CJ). (52) Ibid 568 (McHugh J). (53) Ibid 558 (Dawson J). See also Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72, 112 [110] (Kirby J) ('Oshlack (High (54) Ingram v Ardent Leisure Ltd [No 2] [2020] FCA 1390, [2] (Derrington J). (55) Donald Campbell (n ......
  • Get Started for Free