Mills & Ors v Water Admin. Min. Corp. & Anor. [2001] NSWLEC 82

Mills & Ors v Water Admin. Min. Corp. & Anor. [2001] NSWLEC 82

The second Respondent could have communicated earlier its decision not to seek renewal of the expired approval, which would have avoided unnecessary costs after the remitter; those unnecessary costs were fairly attributable to the second Respondent, but not to the first Respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings Concerning an Approval Under the Water Act 1912 / Costs Application After Remitter From the Court of Appeal; Proceedings Not Further Prosecuted After the Second Respondent Undertook Not to Seek Renewal of the Expired Approval
Outcome
Consent orders made; costs ordered against the second Respondent only.
Legal Topics
['water Act Approval' 'renewal of Approval' 'proceedings Remitted From Court of Appeal' 'costs Thrown Away' 'termination Without Hearing on the Merits']
['environmental Law' 'water Law' 'costs'] ['water Act Approval' 'renewal of Approval' 'proceedings Remitted From Court of Appeal' 'costs Thrown Away' 'termination Without Hearing on the Merits']

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 3 Proceedings Concerning an Approval Under the Water Act 1912 / Costs Application After Remitter From the Court of Appeal; Proceedings Not Further Prosecuted After the Second Respondent Undertook Not to Seek Renewal of the Expired Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondents should pay the Applicants' costs incurred between 28 July 2000 and 9 February 2001 after the matter was remitted from the Court of Appeal." 'Whether any costs order should be made against the first Respondent.' 'Whether the general costs principle applying where proceedings are settled or terminated without a hearing on the merits should apply.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second Respondent could have communicated earlier its decision not to seek renewal of the expired approval, which would have avoided unnecessary costs after the remitter; those unnecessary costs were fairly attributable to the second Respondent, but not to the first Respondent.

Court Disposition

Consent orders made; costs ordered against the second Respondent only.

Orders

  • ['The orders by consent set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the minutes of order were made, noting the matters contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7.' "The second Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicants' costs incurred in the Court between 28 July 2000 and 9 February 2001, in the sum agreed or, failing...