Cost hitch for GE test case

Mothers Against Genetic Engineering may have to drop a test case against the Government if it is ordered to pay security for costs.

MadGE is seeking a judicial review of the processes of the Environment Risk Management Authority (Erma). Also named in the proceedings are the Minister of the Environment and AgResearch Ltd. Justice Ellen France this week reserved her decision.

In his written submissions, the pressure group's lawyer Peter Andrew said it had limited means and was up against three well-resourced institutions of the state.

It was a test case of public importance in an area where there had been little judicial scrutiny.

The issues included the first application involving animals determined by Erma since the release of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification; and the first application to be determined under the Hazardous Substances and New Organism (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Act.

But AgResearch's chief executive, Dr Keith Steele, said it was responsible to ensure its costs were covered in the event that MadGE failed in its judicial review application.

AgResearch lawyer Justin Smith told Justice France that despite the issue being comprehensively debated before a Royal Commission, some people remained implacably opposed to GE and were determined to interrupt it as much as possible.

He said MAdGE was ill-equipped for the costs of a significant High Court litigation, let alone the cost consequences of losing.

Even at this early stage, Mr Smith said, there was a perceptible lack of merit in the group's case. If MAdGE had support, it should garner support for its litigation.

Mr Smith noted that seven of the group's founding members had properties worth $7.6 million.

There was no reason why AgResearch, nor any of the other respondents, should shoulder the costs if MAdGE did not succeed.

AgResearch's costs were estimated to be $100,000 and it sought a figure of $30,000 to be paid into court by the pressure group.