Maxwell and Anor v Warringah Shire Council and Anor [2005] NSWLEC 90

Maxwell and Anor v Warringah Shire Council and Anor [2005] NSWLEC 90

The Commissioner rejected the applicants' proposed Harb discount, accepted the first respondent's claimed costs as reasonable, adjusted the second respondent's claimed expert and representative costs to reflect what was wasted or remained relevant and the appropriate costs basis, and determined amounts to be included in proposed costs orders for concurrence. He also declined to direct acceptance of a bank guarantee and stated that security for costs was not appropriate for him to impose in Class 1 proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings Concerning Costs in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Extempore Judgment Determining Amounts for Costs Orders Proposed for the Chief Judge's Concurrence Under S 69(8) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Outcome
The Commissioner proposed to seek the Chief Judge's concurrence to costs orders after determining the amounts payable, rejected the proposed 25% discount, and indicated that any security for costs application should be by Notice of Motion or point of law reference to a judge.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs' 'chief Judge Concurrence' 'security for Costs' 'class 1 Merits Review Proceedings']
['costs' 'planning and Environment' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'indemnity Costs' 'chief Judge Concurrence' 'security for Costs' 'class 1 Merits Review Proceedings']

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 1 Proceedings Concerning Costs in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Extempore Judgment Determining Amounts for Costs Orders Proposed for the Chief Judge's Concurrence Under S 69(8) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What amounts should be inserted in proposed costs orders for the first and second respondents following adjournment, leave to amend the application, and preparation for and hearing on 2 November 2004.' "Whether a 25% discount said to arise from Harb v Wyong Shire Council (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 724 should be applied to the respondents' costs." 'Whether the applicants could satisfy costs orders by bank guarantee.' 'Whether security for costs would be appropriate in Class 1 proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner rejected the applicants' proposed Harb discount, accepted the first respondent's claimed costs as reasonable, adjusted the second respondent's claimed expert and representative costs to reflect what was wasted or remained relevant and the appropriate costs basis, and determined amounts to be included in proposed costs orders for concurrence. He also declined to direct acceptance of a bank guarantee and stated that security for costs was not appropriate for him to impose in Class 1 proceedings.

Court Disposition

The Commissioner proposed to seek the Chief Judge's concurrence to costs orders after determining the amounts payable, rejected the proposed 25% discount, and indicated that any security for costs application should be by Notice of Motion or point of law reference to a judge.

Orders

  • ['The Commissioner proposed to seek the concurrence of the Chief Judge to the making of the orders provided to the parties on 4 February with the sums of $11,570.00 appearing in order 2 and $28,500.00 appearing in order 3.' 'The costs amount determined as appropriate for the first respondent was $15,570.00.' 'The...