McGovern and Anor v Ku-ring-gai Council and Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 50

McGovern and Anor v Ku-ring-gai Council and Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 50

Because the Respondents were successful on all substantive grounds argued, costs should follow the event. The surrender of the 2004 development consent did not create an event entitling the Applicants to costs up to 28 October 2005, particularly as the Court made no finding on the validity of that consent and the Applicants continued to press challenges to it. The alleged disentitling conduct had already been rejected in substance, and both Respondents were entitled to separate costs orders. The Applicants were also to pay the costs of the Respondents' Notices of Motion because the Respondents had generally been successful on them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of a Development Consent / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of the Applicants' Substantive Application
Outcome
The Applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the Council and the Second Respondent, including the costs of the Respondents' Notices of Motion.
Legal Topics
['exercise of Discretion to Award Costs in Judicial Review Proceedings' 'development Consent Validity Challenge' 'costs Following the Event' 'disentitling Conduct' "multiple Respondents' Costs"]
['costs' 'planning and Environment' 'administrative Law'] ['exercise of Discretion to Award Costs in Judicial Review Proceedings' 'development Consent Validity Challenge' 'costs Following the Event' 'disentitling Conduct' "multiple Respondents' Costs"]

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 Judicial Review Proceedings Challenging the Validity of a Development Consent / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of the Applicants' Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful Respondents should be awarded their costs of the proceedings.' 'Whether the Applicants should receive their costs up to 28 October 2005 because the 2004 development consent was surrendered.' 'Whether alleged conduct by the Council and the Second Respondent disentitled them to costs after October 2005.' 'Whether any costs order against the Applicants should be confined to one order for costs only.' "Whether the Applicants should pay the costs of the Respondents' Notices of Motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Respondents were successful on all substantive grounds argued, costs should follow the event. The surrender of the 2004 development consent did not create an event entitling the Applicants to costs up to 28 October 2005, particularly as the Court made no finding on the validity of that consent and the Applicants continued to press challenges to it. The alleged disentitling conduct had already been rejected in substance, and both Respondents were entitled to separate costs orders. The Applicants were also to pay the costs of the Respondents' Notices of Motion because the Respondents had generally been successful on them.

Court Disposition

The Applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the Council and the Second Respondent, including the costs of the Respondents' Notices of Motion.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants are to pay Ku-Ring-Gai Council's costs as agreed or assessed." "The Applicants are to pay the Second Respondent's costs as agreed or assessed." "The Applicants are to pay the costs of the Council's Notice of Motion dated 29 October 2007 and Second Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 15 October 2007."]