Easton & Anor v Shoalhaven City Council & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 108

Easton & Anor v Shoalhaven City Council & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 108

The applicants were entitled to all of their costs up to and including the costs judgment because they were successful and the commencement of the proceedings was justified. Although the Third Respondent reasonably defended its consent, both the First and Third Respondents should contribute to the applicants' costs. Council's conduct in declining to allow Mr Ryan to provide a statement or affidavit significantly increased the costs of the proceedings, so the appropriate apportionment was that the First Respondent pay three-quarters and the Third Respondent pay one-quarter of the applicants' costs. The Third Respondent was not entitled to an indemnity from Council, and as between the First...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Judgment and Applicants' Notice of Motion Dated 1 April 1999
Outcome
The First Respondent was ordered to pay three-quarters of the applicants' costs and the Third Respondent was ordered to pay one-quarter of the applicants' costs up to and including 11 May 1999.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'building Approval' 'notification Policies' 'submitting Appearance' 'indemnity Costs Between Respondents']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'local Government Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'building Approval' 'notification Policies' 'submitting Appearance' 'indemnity Costs Between Respondents']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Judgment and Applicants' Notice of Motion Dated 1 April 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First and Third Respondents should pay the applicants' costs of the proceedings." "Whether the First Respondent's submitting appearance and production of files limited its exposure to costs." 'Whether the Third Respondent should receive an order that the First Respondent pay its costs or indemnify it against any costs order in favour of the applicants.' "How responsibility for the applicants' costs should be apportioned between the First and Third Respondents."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to all of their costs up to and including the costs judgment because they were successful and the commencement of the proceedings was justified. Although the Third Respondent reasonably defended its consent, both the First and Third Respondents should contribute to the applicants' costs. Council's conduct in declining to allow Mr Ryan to provide a statement or affidavit significantly increased the costs of the proceedings, so the appropriate apportionment was that the First Respondent pay three-quarters and the Third Respondent pay one-quarter of the applicants' costs. The Third Respondent was not entitled to an indemnity from Council, and as between the First...

Court Disposition

The First Respondent was ordered to pay three-quarters of the applicants' costs and the Third Respondent was ordered to pay one-quarter of the applicants' costs up to and including 11 May 1999.

Orders

  • ["That the First Respondent pay three-quarters of the applicants' costs up to and including 11 May 1999." "That the Third Respondent pay one-quarter of the applicants' costs up to and including 11 May 1999."]