Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 4] [2003] NSWLEC 129

Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 4] [2003] NSWLEC 129

Because the proceedings were still at an interlocutory stage and the legal and factual issues had not been finally determined, it was prudent in the circumstances to postpone determination of the First Respondent's costs application until the final outcome of costs in the proceedings. The Applicant's failure on the second interlocutory injunction application did not, by itself, justify an immediate costs order in favour of the First Respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Notice of Motion for Costs Relating to an Unsuccessful Application for an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Costs Application After Refusal of the Applicant's Second Application for an Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
The First Respondent's costs application was stood over until the final outcome of costs in the proceedings is determined.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'costs at Interlocutory Stage' 'public Interest Litigation' 'indemnity Costs' 'immediate Assessment of Costs']
['land and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'costs at Interlocutory Stage' 'public Interest Litigation' 'indemnity Costs' 'immediate Assessment of Costs']

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; Notice of Motion for Costs Relating to an Unsuccessful Application for an Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Costs Application After Refusal of the Applicant's Second Application for an Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First Respondent should be awarded costs of preparation and hearing in relation to the Applicant's unsuccessful second application for an interlocutory injunction." 'Whether costs should be determined at the interlocutory stage or reserved until the final outcome of the proceedings.' 'Whether public interest litigation considerations and special circumstances affected the costs discretion.' 'Whether indemnity costs and immediate assessment of costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proceedings were still at an interlocutory stage and the legal and factual issues had not been finally determined, it was prudent in the circumstances to postpone determination of the First Respondent's costs application until the final outcome of costs in the proceedings. The Applicant's failure on the second interlocutory injunction application did not, by itself, justify an immediate costs order in favour of the First Respondent.

Court Disposition

The First Respondent's costs application was stood over until the final outcome of costs in the proceedings is determined.

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent's Notice of Motion filed on 24 February 2003 is stood over until the final outcome of costs in these proceedings is determined." 'The exhibits may be returned.']