Ralph Lauren 57 Pty Ltd & Ors v Byron Shire Council & Minister for Climate Change and the Environment [2012] NSWLEC 274

Ralph Lauren 57 Pty Ltd & Ors v Byron Shire Council & Minister for Climate Change and the Environment [2012] NSWLEC 274

The proper exercise of costs discretion in discontinued class 4 proceedings, where neither respondent presses the presumption, is for each party to pay their own costs. No reopening is warranted absent new evidence or material unfairness; the applicants' notice of motion to reopen is dismissed. The Council's withdrawal of the draft plan is an objectively supervening event, not a surrender for practical success, and does not entitle applicants to their costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Determination of Costs Following Discontinuance and Hearing on Notice of Motion to Reopen
Outcome
Applicants’ notice of motion to reopen is dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs of proceedings 40068 and 40167 of 2011 and the 31 August 2011 costs hearing. Applicants who brought the notice of motion to reopen to pay both respondents’ costs since 31 August 2011 on a party-party basis. Exhibits returned.
Legal Topics
['costs—discontinued Proceedings' 'discretion in Costs Orders' 'practice and Procedure—applications to Reopen' 'statutory Interpretation—coastal Protection Act']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs—discontinued Proceedings' 'discretion in Costs Orders' 'practice and Procedure—applications to Reopen' 'statutory Interpretation—coastal Protection Act']

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 Discontinuance and Hearing on Notice of Motion to Reopen

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What principles govern the allocation of costs in discontinued class 4 proceedings where the respondents do not press the presumptive rule?' 'Should the applicants be granted leave to reopen the evidence and make further submissions on costs after judgment reserved?' 'Has legal professional privilege been waived in regard to Council documents relevant to costs?' "Is the Council's withdrawal of the draft management plan a 'supervening event' or a 'surrender/capitulation' for the purposes of costs discretion?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The proper exercise of costs discretion in discontinued class 4 proceedings, where neither respondent presses the presumption, is for each party to pay their own costs. No reopening is warranted absent new evidence or material unfairness; the applicants' notice of motion to reopen is dismissed. The Council's withdrawal of the draft plan is an objectively supervening event, not a surrender for practical success, and does not entitle applicants to their costs.

Court Disposition

Applicants’ notice of motion to reopen is dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs of proceedings 40068 and 40167 of 2011 and the 31 August 2011 costs hearing. Applicants who brought the notice of motion to reopen to pay both respondents’ costs since 31 August 2011 on a party-party basis. Exhibits returned.

Orders

  • ['Each party to proceedings 40068 and 40167 of 2011 to pay their own costs of those proceedings and of the costs hearing on 31 August 2011.' 'Notice of motion filed 2 November 2011 dismissed; applicants who brought it to pay the costs incurred by both respondents in relation to costs since 31 August 2011, on a...