An environmental group has been awarded $70,000 in legal costs as part of its ongoing battle to protect conservation land at Tucker’s Point Resort.

The Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce’s legal team received the payout after a ruling in Supreme Court last week.

Last month Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled that BEST’s appeals against a series of applications under the Tucker’s Point Special Development Order (SDO) should be put back before Michael Fahy, the Minister of Home Affairs, or his delegates, for reconsideration.

Last week he ruled that BEST’s legal team was entitled to $70,000 in legal costs for the court hearing.

The ruling by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley was welcomed by BEST’s chairman, Stuart Hayward.

“BEST is pleased that we have so far been protected from bearing the costs of a legal action that is clearly in the public interest,” Mr Hayward said.

“The Court’s decision on costs is of significant importance to organisations like BEST that are motivated by public interest principles.

“It sets a precedent for other public interest Non Governmental Organisations to avail themselves of the justice available through the courts.

“Of course there are safeguards that weed out frivolous appeals to the Court. The decision handed down also helps clear up what must take place at the next stage.

“A significant aspect of the Minister’s earlier decision rejecting BEST’s appeal was the stance taken by the Minister, the Development Application’s Board and the Department of Planning that an Environmental Impact Assessment could not be done because the Special Development Order (EIA) prohibited it.

“That stance was set straight. There is no dictat that prevents an EIA. Rather, as the Chief justice wrote in his decision: ‘In respect of major projects likely to have a significant environmental impact, this assessment technique should be deployed as a general rule.’

Mr Hayward added: “One unintended consequence in this case is that, in quashing the Minister’s March 12 decision and ordering the Minister to rehear our appeal, the Protective Costs Order that shielded BEST from costs, enabling us to take the case to the Supreme Court, does not apply to the court-ordered rehearing.

“The Minister is being represented by a prominent legal firm.

“BEST would surely face a David and Goliath situation if we went into the rehearing without legal representation.”

“The downside is that at the hearing, BEST would no longer be protected against costs, one possible result of which is that our public interest case could be under-represented and disadvantaged.”

In a written judgement Chief Justice Kawaley ruled “BEST is awarded its costs of the appeal in full, subject to the $75,000 cap imposed by the Protective Costs Order of June 25, 2014.

“The Schedule of costs submitted reveals that the actual legal costs are marginally in excess of $100,000.

“Erring very generously in favour of the Minister in this estimation process I summarily assess the Plaintiff’s costs of its successful appeal at $70,000 and order that this sum should be paid on or before September 20, 2014.”