Sahade v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 62022 & Ors [2006] NSWLEC 770

Sahade v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 62022 & Ors [2006] NSWLEC 770

The respondents did not satisfy or cause to be satisfied the applicants' claim. The proceedings were rendered unnecessary by supervening events, including the prompt lodgement and grant of development consent for the use and the death of the third respondent. Because the applicants commenced without formal notice, opposed adjournment despite s 124(3), and the respondents acted appropriately to avoid unnecessary costs, the proper costs order for the substantive Class 4 proceedings was that each party pay its own costs. However, because the respondents had to prepare evidence, submissions and attend to defend the costs application, the compensatory purpose of costs justified ordering the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Application for Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs After Proceedings Effectively Resolved
Outcome
No order as to costs of the substantive Class 4 proceedings; applicants ordered to pay the second to fourth respondents' costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Use of Premises' 'development Consent' 'costs Discretion' 'adjournment to Enable Development Application' 'supervening Event']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['unlawful Use of Premises' 'development Consent' 'costs Discretion' 'adjournment to Enable Development Application' 'supervening Event']

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; Application for Costs / Ex Tempore Judgment on Costs After Proceedings Effectively Resolved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second to fourth respondents satisfied or caused to be satisfied the applicants' claim after proceedings commenced so as to justify a costs order under Pt 15 r 7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996." 'Whether the grant of development consent and the death of the third respondent were supervening events that modified or removed the subject of the dispute so that no issue remained except costs.' "Whether the applicants should pay the second to fourth respondents' costs of the costs application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not satisfy or cause to be satisfied the applicants' claim. The proceedings were rendered unnecessary by supervening events, including the prompt lodgement and grant of development consent for the use and the death of the third respondent. Because the applicants commenced without formal notice, opposed adjournment despite s 124(3), and the respondents acted appropriately to avoid unnecessary costs, the proper costs order for the substantive Class 4 proceedings was that each party pay its own costs. However, because the respondents had to prepare evidence, submissions and attend to defend the costs application, the compensatory purpose of costs justified ordering the...

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the substantive Class 4 proceedings; applicants ordered to pay the second to fourth respondents' costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ['Each party is to pay its own costs of the Class 4 proceedings.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the second to fourth respondents as agreed or as assessed of and incidental to the costs application.']