FRIENDS OF HINCHINBROOK SOCIETY INC v MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT & OTHERS

ection or conservation of the property or of a property of a kind that includes the property". That was a factor which influenced Branson J in the first instance when she was asked to make an order for security for costs. Such an order was not made when the application was before her during the first hearing. The present position is that a decision has been given; judgment has been handed down by Sackville J and it is clear from that judgment that there are matters that can be put one way or the other. I have certainly not formed any view about them, partly because they are quite complex points. But it is clear enough from his Honour's judgment that the issues involved are complex matters and arguments can be put on both sides. For that reason, it seems to me that this appeal is simply the inevitable consequence of the initiation of the proceedings and it is in the public interest that the questions be resolved and I think, in that case, having regard to the public interest in having those questions resolved, it would be inappropriate to now require the appellants to provide security for costs, so I will refuse the motions. I will order that the costs of the motion be costs of the appeal. I certify that this and the preceding 3 pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Davies. Associate: Date: 28 April 1997 Counsel for the applicant: N.J. Williams and T. Reilly Solicitor for the applicant: Environmental Defender's Office Counsel for the 1st respondent:J.S. Hilton SC Solicitor for the 1st respondent:Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the 2nd respondent: S.M. Gorry, Solicitor Solicitor for the 2nd respondent: Henry Davis York Date of hearing: 14 April 1997 Date of judgment: 14 April 1997