Yes the more I think about it the more I agree on this. Again...

Yes the more I think about it the more I agree on this. Again why would the high court rule costs against nhc for the appeal when they are saying go back to square one. By that reasoning, when nhc appealed, and were successful in showing bias and flaws in the legal arguments of the lower court, ocaa should pay their costs (which was the original ruling but overturned by the high court). I actually didn't see any reasoning in my brief reading in the judgment as to why this is the case. But perhaps it is standard, I'm not that well versed in legal proceedings.

I also feel there is an injustice in that a party with nothing financial on the line, being ocaa, being able to run this extensive litigation process. They've admitted they have no assets to go after, so aren't really taking any financial (and the emotions tied up with risking ones finances) risk. They are being fully funded by the edo, so therefore don't even need to put much time or effort into this decades long process as the edo are doing all the work. Is the ocaa really a front for politically funded campaigns?

I would have to dig it up, and I can't remember the details of it now, but I remember reading an article, a few years ago now, maybe 3-4 years ago, that some funding for the activists for this case was coming from a lobbying group in the US. This group had the purpose of holding up developments in other jurisdictions for coal and oil. Don't quote me it is a vague memory now, however a search for new hope or new acland in the history of AFR and the Australian (or possibly the Courier Mail) would probably bring it up. I remember being shocked at the time, but it did make me think, there has to be some serious backers behind this, no normal person or group could possibly devote so much time, energy and financial resources to this. Not without some significant funding and a political bent behind it. Even the individuals who are the face of ocaa, like most of us, would be in their own little bubble - they might be concerned about their land value, or their groundwater, but to extend that to a 100 day hearing in court using all sorts of technical legal arguments on all sorts of grounds (most of which were dismissed) is beyond any logical extension of them purporting that they are a group of battlers putting up a fight.