Trenwith & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council & Anor (No 3) [2006] NSWLEC 490

Trenwith & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council & Anor (No 3) [2006] NSWLEC 490

The Applicants were generally successful and had engaged in no disentitling conduct. The Council's errors were attributable causes of the invalidity of the development consent, and its submitting appearance did not immunise it from costs because the Applicants still had to prove entitlement to declaratory and consequential relief. The Second Respondent was the beneficiary of the consent, was the sole contradictor, challenged the discretionary relief sought, and had also filed an incomplete development application. Both Respondents were therefore jointly and severally liable for the Applicants' costs, with no greater share imposed on the Second Respondent because he had relied on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Concerning Declarations of Invalidity of a Development Consent and Construction Certificate, Consequential Relief, and Costs / Judgment on Costs After Final Orders
Outcome
The First and Second Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicants' costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Invalidity' 'submitting Appearance' 'costs Discretion' 'joint and Several Costs Liability' 'declaratory Relief']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['development Consent Invalidity' 'submitting Appearance' 'costs Discretion' 'joint and Several Costs Liability' 'declaratory Relief']

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 Concerning Declarations of Invalidity of a Development Consent and Construction Certificate, Consequential Relief, and Costs / Judgment on Costs After Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First Respondent's filing of a submitting appearance affected whether it should pay the Applicants' costs." "Whether the First and Second Respondents should pay the Applicants' costs of the proceedings." 'Whether liability for costs should be shared between the consent authority and the beneficiary of the development consent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants were generally successful and had engaged in no disentitling conduct. The Council's errors were attributable causes of the invalidity of the development consent, and its submitting appearance did not immunise it from costs because the Applicants still had to prove entitlement to declaratory and consequential relief. The Second Respondent was the beneficiary of the consent, was the sole contradictor, challenged the discretionary relief sought, and had also filed an incomplete development application. Both Respondents were therefore jointly and severally liable for the Applicants' costs, with no greater share imposed on the Second Respondent because he had relied on the...

Court Disposition

The First and Second Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicants' costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The First and Second Respondents must pay the Applicants' costs of these proceedings." 'The exhibits may be returned.']