1A challenge by elected councillors to their removal from office does not automatically constitute 'public interest litigation' warranting departure from the usual costs rule; where the grounds of review are matters peculiar to the applicants' personal circumstances and grievances, the litigation fails at the threshold characterisation step of the Caroona three-step framework.
2The Caroona three-step approach to public interest costs arguments requires: (1) characterisation of the litigation as brought in the public interest; (2) identification of 'something more' beyond mere characterisation; and (3) consideration of countervailing circumstances — and this framework applies in South Australia notwithstanding the absence of a specific rule equivalent to r 4.2(1) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 (NSW).
3Where interlocutory applications were drafted on an incorrect procedural basis but the material sought was clearly relevant and ultimately produced by consent, it may be appropriate for each party to bear their own costs of those applications rather than treating them as costs in the cause.
