The Advertiser Hindmarsh Island bridge activist to pay up By Court Reporter SAM WEIR 05jul00 ABORIGINAL activist Darrell Sumner faces a hefty legal bill after a Supreme Court judge ruled he should pay defendants' costs in his failed attempt to stop construction of the Hindmarsh Island bridge. But Mr Sumner, 54, says he does not have any money to pay the costs, which are expected to run to tens of thousands of dollars. "I don't have any dollars so they can do what they have to do," he said. Mr Sumner said he would do it again and his only regret was that the decision might put others off fighting such actions. His lawyer, Ralph Bleechmore, said the law was becoming inaccessible to the average person. "If you can't take on someone who is big without being threatened with huge costs what avenue is left?," he said. "If you can't take legal avenues you may be forced to take illegal avenues." Mr Sumner sued the British Government, the State of South Australia, the Premier, Cabinet ministers, developers Tom and Wendy Chapman, and construction companies. His action was based on a claim that building the bridge constitutes an act of genocide against the Ngarrindjeri people. But in April, Justice Margaret Nyland found the claim of genocide was unfounded, as it was not recognised by Australian law and no defendant had any intention to destroy the Ngarrindjeri. She ordered all of Mr Sumner's action be struck out for failure to disclose a cause of action and the defendants applied for costs. Mr Sumner argued there should be no order against him for costs and relied on a 1998 High Court decision in which no order for costs was made in a case found to be a "public interest" case. The defendants argued they had been completely successful in the litigation and there was no reason for the court to depart from the norm in awarding costs. Yesterday, Justice Nyland agreed and ordered Mr Sumner pay the costs of each of the defendants. She said it was unnecessary to determine whether Mr Sumner's claim might be classified as "public interest" litigation, but said "for an unsuccessful `public interest' litigant to avoid an order for costs, it should at least present an arguable case". -- ********************************** 'Click' to protect the rainforest: Make the Rainforest Site your homepage! http://www.therainforestsite.com/ ********************************** ------------------------------------------------------ RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
