In that case not only was the prohibitve order for security bond made before the substantive issues could be heard, but then the costs of losing the argument over whether to pay the bond led to an appeal and another costs order and then 2 years later bankruptcy of public interest litigant. And the substantive issues of illegality were never looked at by the LEC in NSW.

Is this what was intended by the framers of the 1979 legislation in the wake of the green bans in NSW and election of an ALP Wran Govt, after the corrupt Askin? After echoes of corruption of Bjelke Peterson up North bulldozing heritage?

You have a look at the tenor of s.39 (informality of proceedings) and s.63 (agent instead of a lawyer permitted) of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 in NSW, and open standing provisions of s.123 of the principal EP&A Act in NSW. These are virtually a dead letter now due to costs orders. I submit that wasn’t the intent of the legislators but it’s a cosy business and all but a closed shop in my view.

I was at the registry in Sydney 2 weeks back and a developer’s lawyer asked me how I could be filing for my client at risk of costs. I said well - he’s already bankrupt, and I’m just his agent. And a pensioner who can avoid filing fees at the discretion of the Registrar.

But that’s not how it’s supposed to be and bankruptcy brings its own Olympic hurdles to vault. Then perhaps the most corrosive thing in the whole situation is that when by some miracle there is a public interest victor more often than not the ALP govt up until recently at least was very willing and ready to repeal the decision by legislation. Nasty.