The Council of the City of Shoalhaven v National Parks and Wildlife Service and Ors (No. 2) [2003] NSWLEC 273

The Council of the City of Shoalhaven v National Parks and Wildlife Service and Ors (No. 2) [2003] NSWLEC 273

The conduct of the first and second respondents was not such as to make it fair and reasonable to impose liability on them for costs incurred against the sixth respondent, nor for costs relating to the roads issue. Joinder of the sixth respondent was the applicant's decision and independent claims do not justify a Bullock order. Costs should be paid by first and second respondents only for the proceedings excluding costs against the sixth respondent and the roads issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 4 & Class 3 Applications / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application for Bullock or Sanderson order refused; variation of costs order granted.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'joinder of Parties' 'land Acquisition' 'roads Interest']
['environmental Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Orders' 'bullock Order' 'sanderson Order' 'joinder of Parties' 'land Acquisition' 'roads Interest']

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 & Class 3 Applications / Costs Determination Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a Bullock or Sanderson order should be made for costs against the first and second respondents in respect of costs payable to the sixth respondent' "Whether the first and second respondents should pay the applicant's costs relating to the unsuccessful 'roads issue'"]

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of the first and second respondents was not such as to make it fair and reasonable to impose liability on them for costs incurred against the sixth respondent, nor for costs relating to the roads issue. Joinder of the sixth respondent was the applicant's decision and independent claims do not justify a Bullock order. Costs should be paid by first and second respondents only for the proceedings excluding costs against the sixth respondent and the roads issue.

Court Disposition

Application for Bullock or Sanderson order refused; variation of costs order granted.

Orders

  • ['Order 4 of 18 July 2003 be vacated.' "Substitute order: first and second respondents pay applicant's costs of proceedings other than (i) costs of applicant's claim against sixth respondent; (ii) costs relating to applicant's claim to interest in roads in Deposited Plans 8515, 8516, 8517." 'No order for costs in...