Director-General Department Of Land & Water Conservation - V - Pye (No 2) [1999] NSWLEC 45

Director-General Department Of Land & Water Conservation - V - Pye (No 2) [1999] NSWLEC 45

The omission to seek costs when judgment was delivered resulted from the defendant's solicitor's inadvertence and the request for costs was foreshadowed before the orders were sealed and entered; s 52 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 does not exclude operation of the slip rule, so the Court had jurisdiction to add a costs order. Applying Latoudis v Casey, the successful defendant was entitled to costs because he had not withheld relevant information and had provided an explanation that the clearing concerned regrowth of less than ten years of age.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings in the Summary Jurisdiction Concerning Charges of Clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent / Application by Successful Defendant for Costs After Summonses Were Dismissed; Alternative Application to Amend Orders Under the Slip Rule
Outcome
The defendant's application for costs succeeded; the prosecutor must pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Criminal Jurisdiction' 'costs After Dismissal of Charges' 'slip Rule' 'variation of Perfected Orders' 'clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent']
['criminal Law' 'environmental Law' 'costs' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Criminal Jurisdiction' 'costs After Dismissal of Charges' 'slip Rule' 'variation of Perfected Orders' 'clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent']

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

Criminal Proceedings in the Summary Jurisdiction Concerning Charges of Clearing Native Vegetation Without Consent / Application by Successful Defendant for Costs After Summonses Were Dismissed; Alternative Application to Amend Orders Under the Slip Rule

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power to make an order for costs after the summonses had been dismissed and the order entered and sealed.' 'Whether s 52 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 prevented use of the slip rule to add a costs order.' "Whether the defendant's failure to answer a detailed questionnaire justified refusing costs under the principles in Latoudis v Casey."]

Ratio Decidendi

The omission to seek costs when judgment was delivered resulted from the defendant's solicitor's inadvertence and the request for costs was foreshadowed before the orders were sealed and entered; s 52 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 does not exclude operation of the slip rule, so the Court had jurisdiction to add a costs order. Applying Latoudis v Casey, the successful defendant was entitled to costs because he had not withheld relevant information and had provided an explanation that the clearing concerned regrowth of less than ten years of age.

Court Disposition

The defendant's application for costs succeeded; the prosecutor must pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Prosecutor to pay costs of the defendant.']