The Court ordered the unsuccessful applicant for leave to appeal to pay the second respondent's costs, applying the standard rule that costs follow the event. The applicant's arguments — that costs were disproportionate, that the respondent's case was inconsistent with its earlier VCAT position, and that leave was refused without adjudicating the merits — were held to provide no good reason to depart from the usual costs order. The fact that leave was refused because the interlocutory decision had been overtaken by events was a risk the applicant bore.
The full text is available to signed-in members.