Farah, A and Farah, S v Warringah Council and KSSLZ#13 Pty Limited and Ward, T and Ward, M [2006] NSWLEC 544

Farah, A and Farah, S v Warringah Council and KSSLZ#13 Pty Limited and Ward, T and Ward, M [2006] NSWLEC 544

The applicants succeeded only on the late-added and narrow issue that the council failed to determine the development application with finality, while they failed on significant other issues that increased the costs of the proceedings. Fairness required a special apportionment: the applicants should recover only part of the costs solely referable to the successful issue, the second respondent should recover costs solely referable to the unsuccessful issues, and each side should bear common costs and costs of the costs application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Concerning Validity of Development Consent / Costs Determination After Judgment and on the Second Respondent's Notice of Motion
Outcome
Special costs orders made between the applicants and the second respondent; each bore their own costs of the costs application.
Legal Topics
['special Costs Order' 'apportionment of Costs' 'development Consent' 'late Amendment of Pleadings']
['costs' 'planning and Environment'] ['special Costs Order' 'apportionment of Costs' 'development Consent' 'late Amendment of Pleadings']

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 Concerning Validity of Development Consent / Costs Determination After Judgment and on the Second Respondent's Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a special costs order should be made because the applicants succeeded only on a late-added ground and failed on other issues.' "Whether the applicants should pay the second respondent's costs except for costs relating to the successful finality issue, or whether each party should bear its own costs." 'How costs should be apportioned between the applicants and the second respondent where some costs were common to successful and unsuccessful issues.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants succeeded only on the late-added and narrow issue that the council failed to determine the development application with finality, while they failed on significant other issues that increased the costs of the proceedings. Fairness required a special apportionment: the applicants should recover only part of the costs solely referable to the successful issue, the second respondent should recover costs solely referable to the unsuccessful issues, and each side should bear common costs and costs of the costs application.

Court Disposition

Special costs orders made between the applicants and the second respondent; each bore their own costs of the costs application.

Orders

  • ["That the second respondent pay one half of the applicants' costs of the proceedings limited only to costs incurred solely in respect of the issue upon which the applicants were successful." "That the applicants pay the second respondent's costs of the proceedings limited only to costs incurred solely in respect of...