Pittwater Council v A1 Professional Tree Recycling Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 21

Pittwater Council v A1 Professional Tree Recycling Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 21

The defendant did not establish either statutory ground for costs. The prosecutor's construction of the first limb of the definition of "bushland" was reasonably arguable, and the investigation by Mr Wright, a qualified and experienced council officer with first-hand knowledge of the site, provided support for the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs by Successful Defendant in Criminal Proceedings for Alleged Unlawful Clearing of Bushland Contrary to a Council Tree Preservation Order / After the Defendant's No Case to Answer Submission Was Upheld and the Summons Was Dismissed
Outcome
No order as to the costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['professional Costs Against Prosecutor Acting in a Public Capacity' 'unreasonable or Improper Investigation' 'proceedings Initiated Without Reasonable Cause' 'tree Preservation Order' 'no Case to Answer']
['criminal Procedure' 'costs' 'environmental Law' 'local Government'] ['professional Costs Against Prosecutor Acting in a Public Capacity' 'unreasonable or Improper Investigation' 'proceedings Initiated Without Reasonable Cause' 'tree Preservation Order' 'no Case to Answer']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Costs by Successful Defendant in Criminal Proceedings for Alleged Unlawful Clearing of Bushland Contrary to a Council Tree Preservation Order / After the Defendant's No Case to Answer Submission Was Upheld and the Summons Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the investigation into the alleged offence was conducted in an unreasonable manner under Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 257D(1)(a).' 'Whether the proceedings were initiated without reasonable cause under Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 257D(1)(b).' 'Whether the successful defendant should be awarded professional costs against the prosecutor.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not establish either statutory ground for costs. The prosecutor's construction of the first limb of the definition of "bushland" was reasonably arguable, and the investigation by Mr Wright, a qualified and experienced council officer with first-hand knowledge of the site, provided support for the prosecution case on that construction. The investigation was not shown to be unreasonable, and the proceedings could not be said to have had no real prospect of success or to have been doomed to failure when initiated.

Court Disposition

No order as to the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['No order as to the costs of the proceedings.' 'The exhibit may be returned.']