On Friday the Federal Court ruled that each party in the proceedings would be required to pay their own legal costs.

After the court ruled against the BBF earlier this year the Tasmanian government said it would be making a claim for compensation of court costs.

The BBF had sought to prove that Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement was invalid because it did not create "legally binding relations" over matters of national environmental significant and old growth management.

IN OTHER NEWS:

However in February the full bench of the Federal Court ruled that just because one part of the RFA was not legally binding, it didn't mean the entire agreement wasn't.

"As has already been outlined above, the Tasmanian RFA is in three parts; the first two are expressed not to be intended to create legally binding obligations, the third part, however, provides for such an intention," the judgment read.

Dr Brown said the court's decision to have each party pay their own costs vindicated the foundation in bringing forward their case.

"We were never going to gain anything out of this as an organisation. We were taking this case to challenge the native forest destroying Regional Forest Agreement and for the survival of endangered species that rely on intact forests," Bob Brown Foundation's Campaign Manager Jenny Weber added.

"The expected costs were likely to exceed $300 000 of taxpayers' funds spent by the Commonwealth and state governments on this case defending Tasmania's wild forests including the critically endangered Swift parrot."

The foundation is expected to make an announcement about appealing the case against Tasmania's RFA to the High Court next week.

IN RELATED NEWS: