This series of cases concerned an application by the Port of Melbourne Corporation (POMC) to deepen several shipping channels in Port Phillip Bay in Victoria.

The first appeal considered the applicants contention that the matter's approval under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act") was not valid as the action had significantly changed during the approvals process. Although this application was unsuccessful the decision contains an important instance of the Federal Court deciding not to award costs against a community group pursuing public interest litigation.

• This decision is available on Austlii

The second case in this series involved an challenge to the Federal Environment Minister's decision to approve the matter by the community group. The group claimed the Minister failed to take several matters into account including the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The Federal Court disagreed with the community group and dismissed this application.

• This decision is available on Austlii

In this situation the court decided not to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, and ordered the community group pay the costs of the POMC, as well as the State and Federal Government:

It became evident that the assets of Blue Wedges Inc currently amount to $2700. The Court raised the question whether, in those circumstances, the applicant was prepared to make an open offer in recognition of some of the matters which had been canvassed during the hearing on costs. In response, Mr Morehead obtained instructions that the applicant would be prepared to pay $1500. It might be thought that the making of such an offer would be the end of the argument and that pursuing the matter beyond that point might be akin to seeking to squeeze blood out of a stone. However, that was not the position of the respondents, who pressed for orders. That was their entitlement. Their policy reasons for doing so must lie with them. The Court is not in a position to say whether the policy reasons are good or bad. Nonetheless, it should be observed that there is some curiosity about the strenuous persistence with which the orders continued to be sought.

• This decision is available on Austlii

• The full decision in the first application is available on Austlii

• The full decision in the second application is available on Austlii

• The full decision in the third application is available on Austlii