under paragraph (c) above. We do, therefore, decline to grant the said Orders. 61. With regard to the prayer in paragraph (c), it is a well established rule of procedure that costs should follow the event. However, we are also mindful of exceptions to this rule in exceptinal circumstances. Hence in Sutherland vs. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27 (CanLii) the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that courts should not depart from this rule except in special circumstances, as a successful litigant has a ‘reasonable expectation’ of obtaining an order for costs. 62. In Barclay (Guardian ad litem) vs. British Columbia 2006 BCCA 434 (CanLii) matters of public interest were identified as exceptions to the general rule. It was held (per Mackenzie JA): “The strictures of the general rules in private litigation are modified to some degree in litigation which engages a broader public interest beyond the pecuniary interests of the particular plaintiffs who pursue the action.” 63. Similarly, in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band 2003 SCC 71 (CanLii) Lebel J. stated: “In highly exceptional cases involving matters of public importance the individual litigant who loses on the merits may not only be relieved of the harsh consequences of paying the other side’s costs, but may actually have its own costs ordered to be paid by a successful intervenor or party.” 64. In the instant case, the Reference largely gravitated around issues of State responsibility for the conduct of decentralised or devolved governance entities. Those issues are of great importance to the Community and Partner States, and have not previously been adjudicated before this Court. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 30