When a Case Splits in Two: Litigation Strategy and Cost Exposure After Lendlease v Pallas
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Civil Procedure & Evidence › Lendlease Corporation Limited v Pallas [2025] HCA 19 (7 May 2025)
Published: 19 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary
This decision concerned whether Lendlease was entitled to bring two separate judicial review proceedings challenging the same decision under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW).
Lendlease challenged the approval of the Powerhouse Parramatta development. Its first application sought judicial review for “jurisdictional error”. Later, after obtaining new information, it commenced a second application based on different alleged errors.
The respondents argued the second proceeding was an abuse of process because both challenges should have been brought in a single proceeding.
The High Court disagreed.
The Court reaffirmed that separate judicial review applications are permissible where they concern distinct legal errors, even if they target the same underlying administrative decision. The essential line encapsulating the reasoning is:
“An abuse of process does not arise merely because a single administrative decision becomes the subject of more than one judicial review proceeding.”
Key principles from the judgment:
Abuse of process requires something more than duplication.
A second proceeding is not abusive where it raises a different ground of review, not available or reasonably discoverable earlier.
Judicial economy is relevant but not determinative.
The focus remains on whether the proceeding would unjustifiably oppress another party or undermine the integrity of the court’s processes.
The appeal was dismissed.
Why It Still Matters
The case matters because it illustrates a growing trend in complex public and commercial disputes:
Litigation can fracture into multiple applications, each with its own timeline, evidence demands, and cost profile.
A party may need to react to new information, new statutory grounds, or new expert reports. Opponents may challenge on procedural grounds. The case may shift direction midway, changing assumptions about total cost.
From a client’s perspective, the practical risks include:
escalating expenditure across multiple fronts;
increased uncertainty about the total pathway;
procedural hazards from missing or mis-sequencing claims;
pressure to respond quickly to new grounds of review;
the psychological and financial burden of extended litigation.
These were precisely the dynamics at play in Lendlease v Pallas. The outcome turned less on the merits than on litigation architecture, the sequencing and framing of judicial review grounds.
It is easy for clients to underestimate this risk when commencing proceedings. The structure chosen at the start can determine whether a matter remains manageable or becomes unpredictable.
This is where early, independent structural advice is protective.
How to Avoid the Same Trap:
Cost Alignment and Pre-Commitment Clarity
The risk exposed here is not misconduct; it is structural drift, where litigation expands, splits or evolves in ways that multiply cost and uncertainty.
Clean Law’s cost-alignment safeguard is designed to prevent clients from being trapped in a case that becomes larger and costlier than expected.
Two lawyers often cost less than one - because you fund one path, not both.
Traditional models prepare for settlement and for trial simultaneously. Clean Law separates roles so the client funds only the pathway they are actually pursuing, minimising duplicated work and unnecessary cost escalation.
Complementing this, Clean Law uses the consolidated-tender process described in your homepage file:
A single neutral case summary is prepared.
It is sent to multiple independent barristers or experts.
Each provides an assessment of strategy, risk, evidence needs and cost likely at each stage.
Clean Law consolidates those views into a clear, comparative pack for the client.
This structure gives clients clarity before committing to litigation that might, like Lendlease, later branch into multiple proceedings, each with separate cost profiles and strategic consequences.
Clients who read this case often ask how they can know, at the start, whether their matter might split into multiple pathways. Our cost-alignment explainer sets out the structure that avoids unnecessary drift.
Learn more → Cost Alignment & One-Path Funding
Lendlease v Pallas reminds us that litigation architecture can shape outcomes as much as legal error. When disputes can split or multiply, clients benefit from transparent structure, a funding model aligned with one strategic path, and early expert opinions that clarify whether the matter is proportionate to pursue.
If you are weighing judicial review, public law challenge or commercial litigation and want a confidential assessment before committing resources, a private discussion can help map the safest next steps.
Book a confidential discussion → Secure a Private Consultation
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
