Following a successful constitutional challenge to back-to-work legislation, the applicants sought costs against the intervener, the employer.
The intervener sought costs against the applicants for a subsequent unsuccessful remedial motion.
The court analyzed the general rule that interveners are neither liable for nor entitled to costs, and the exceptions based on the intervener's direct private interest and level of participation.
The court found the intervener had a direct private interest in both proceedings.
The court ordered the intervener to pay $54,000 in costs for the main application, and ordered the applicants to pay $26,000 to the intervener for the remedial motion.