Conomos and Anor v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 56

Conomos and Anor v Woollahra Municipal Council and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 56

Because the proceedings were resolved without adjudication and the consent challenged by the applicants was rendered ineffective by consent, there should generally be no order as to costs between the applicants and the second respondent. However, after heads of agreement and the deed resolved the practical issues between them, there was no practical justification for the applicants to take further positive steps by their notices of motion filed 6 September 2000 and 20 October 2000. The second respondent was partially successful on her costs motion, so the applicants were ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of those motions and of the second respondent's notice of motion filed 9...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Challenging the Validity of Development Consent DA 15/99 / Notice of Motion by the Second Respondent for Costs After the Dispute Was Resolved Without Adjudication on the Merits
Outcome
The second respondent's costs motion was allowed in part; otherwise there was no order as to costs between the applicants and the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'orders by Consent' 'development Consent' 'modification of Development Consent Under S 96']
['environmental Planning Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'orders by Consent' 'development Consent' 'modification of Development Consent Under S 96']

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 Challenging the Validity of Development Consent DA 15/99 / Notice of Motion by the Second Respondent for Costs After the Dispute Was Resolved Without Adjudication on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the second respondent's costs where the proceedings challenging development consent were resolved without adjudication on the merits." "Whether costs should be awarded for the applicants' notices of motion filed after heads of agreement had been reached and for the second respondent's costs motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceedings were resolved without adjudication and the consent challenged by the applicants was rendered ineffective by consent, there should generally be no order as to costs between the applicants and the second respondent. However, after heads of agreement and the deed resolved the practical issues between them, there was no practical justification for the applicants to take further positive steps by their notices of motion filed 6 September 2000 and 20 October 2000. The second respondent was partially successful on her costs motion, so the applicants were ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of those motions and of the second respondent's notice of motion filed 9...

Court Disposition

The second respondent's costs motion was allowed in part; otherwise there was no order as to costs between the applicants and the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['The applicants pay the costs of the second respondent in respect of notices of motion filed 6 September 2000 and 20 October 2000 by the applicants and notice of motion filed by the second respondent on 9 March 2001.' 'Subject to order 1, no order as to costs between the applicant and the second respondent.' 'The...