Lu v Walding (No 3) [2022] NSWLEC 15

Lu v Walding (No 3) [2022] NSWLEC 15

The applicants succeeded on principal legal ground, were granted an extension of time to commence proceedings, and achieved substantial ameliorative orders, though not demolition. No disentitling conduct was found, and respondents' offers were not sufficiently clear or reasonable to justify a different costs order. Therefore, the First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay two thirds of First and Second Applicants' costs, as well as costs of costs applications to Applicants and Third Respondent.

Parties
First Applicant: Lin Lu; Second Applicant: Frederick Woo; First Respondent: Adrian Walding; Second Respondent: Alexandra Walding; Third Respondent: Northern Beaches Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination Following Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders in favour of Applicants and Third Respondent against First and Second Respondents
Legal Topics
Costs in Judicial Review, Development Consent, Landowner's Consent, Discretion to Allow Proceedings Out of Time
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Costs in Judicial Review Development Consent Landowner's Consent Discretion to Allow Proceedings Out of Time

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 6 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lin Lu

First Applicant

Frederick Woo

Second Applicant

Adrian Walding

First Respondent

Alexandra Walding

Second Respondent

Northern Beaches Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to applicants in a judicial review challenge to grant of development consent
  2. 2 Liability for costs between active parties and submitting appearance parties
  3. 3 Effect of Calderbank offers and offers of compromise

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants succeeded on principal legal ground, were granted an extension of time to commence proceedings, and achieved substantial ameliorative orders, though not demolition. No disentitling conduct was found, and respondents' offers were not sufficiently clear or reasonable to justify a different costs order. Therefore, the First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay two thirds of First and Second Applicants' costs, as well as costs of costs applications to Applicants and Third Respondent.

Court Disposition

Costs orders in favour of Applicants and Third Respondent against First and Second Respondents

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents must pay two thirds of the First and Second Applicants' costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
  • The First and Second Respondents must pay the First and Second Applicants' costs of these costs applications as agreed or assessed.