Adams & Anor v Great Lakes Council & Anor (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 243

Adams & Anor v Great Lakes Council & Anor (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 243

The First Applicant was successful in obtaining a declaration that the development consent was void for lack of owner’s consent; there was no disentitling conduct; the overall litigation outcome justifies costs in the First Applicant’s favour, except for the discrete unsuccessful Notice of Motion regarding the s 177 certificate, for which the Council’s costs are deducted.

Parties
First Applicant: Peter Adams; Second Applicant: Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989; First Respondent: Great Lakes Council; Second Respondent: Gregory James Harrison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Class 4 (judicial Review) / Costs Ruling
Outcome
Orders as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion in Judicial Review, Development Consent Validity, Owner’s Consent Under Crown Lands Act
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Costs Discretion in Judicial Review Development Consent Validity Owner’s Consent Under Crown Lands 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Adams

First Applicant

Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act 1989

Second Applicant

Great Lakes Council

First Respondent

Gregory James Harrison

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 (judicial Review) / Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful party should be awarded costs in Class 4 proceedings
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order in circumstances where preliminary findings changed
  3. 3 Impact of not joining the Minister from the outset on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The First Applicant was successful in obtaining a declaration that the development consent was void for lack of owner’s consent; there was no disentitling conduct; the overall litigation outcome justifies costs in the First Applicant’s favour, except for the discrete unsuccessful Notice of Motion regarding the s 177 certificate, for which the Council’s costs are deducted.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs

Orders

  • The First Respondent must pay the First Applicant's costs of the proceedings except the costs relating to the First Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2010, including costs on 5 February 2010 and 10 March 2010.
  • The First Respondent must pay the First Applicant's costs of this costs hearing.