A OSHLACK v. IRON GATES PTY LIMITED & ANOR No. 40152 of 1996 [1997] NSWLEC 40 (8 April 1997) [1997] NSWLEC 1

A OSHLACK v. IRON GATES PTY LIMITED & ANOR No. 40152 of 1996 [1997] NSWLEC 40 (8 April 1997) [1997] NSWLEC 1

Because the respondents were not wholly successful on the first issue, given that Stein J found the road development consent had lapsed but declined discretionary declaratory relief, the proper order was no order for costs in relation to that issue. The applicant was wholly successful on the remaining issues, and the second respondent actively participated in and opposed the proceedings rather than submitting, so ordinary costs practice required both respondents to pay the applicant's costs except those relating to the first declaration sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Following the Judgment of Stein J Delivered on 6 March 1997
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs except costs relating to the first declaration sought by the applicant.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'issue Based Costs' 'development Consent' 'breach of Development Consent Conditions' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act Breach']
['costs' 'land and Environment' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'national Parks and Wildlife'] ['costs Discretion' 'issue Based Costs' 'development Consent' 'breach of Development Consent Conditions' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act Breach']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Following the Judgment of Stein J Delivered on 6 March 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be no order for costs in relation to the issue concerning whether the development consent for a road had lapsed pursuant to s 99 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs in relation to the first issue on which no declaration was made." 'Whether the second respondent should bear an order for costs where the declarations and orders were directed to the first respondent but the second respondent actively opposed the relief sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents were not wholly successful on the first issue, given that Stein J found the road development consent had lapsed but declined discretionary declaratory relief, the proper order was no order for costs in relation to that issue. The applicant was wholly successful on the remaining issues, and the second respondent actively participated in and opposed the proceedings rather than submitting, so ordinary costs practice required both respondents to pay the applicant's costs except those relating to the first declaration sought.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs except costs relating to the first declaration sought by the applicant.

Orders

  • ["Order that the respondents pay the applicant's costs, other than those costs relating to the first declaration sought by the applicant."]