Ballina Shire Council v Stubberfield & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 538

Ballina Shire Council v Stubberfield & Anor (No 2) [2006] NSWLEC 538

The Applicant, having been successful in the substantive proceedings and not engaged in disentitling conduct, is entitled to its costs on a party-party basis. The circumstances did not justify indemnity costs, as the Respondents' conduct was not so unreasonable as to warrant such an order, nor was there any improper purpose.

Parties
Applicant: Ballina Shire Council; First Respondent: John Richard Stubberfield; Second Respondent: Dorothy May Stubberfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings (land and Environment Court) / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Decision
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Applicant (Ballina Shire Council) on a party-party basis; application for indemnity costs refused; application for out of pocket expenses by Respondents refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Discretion of Court in Awarding Costs, Compliance With Council Orders
Local Government Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Discretion of Court in Awarding Costs Compliance With Council Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ballina Shire Council

Applicant

John Richard Stubberfield

First Respondent

Dorothy May Stubberfield

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings (land and Environment Court) / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents should be ordered to pay out of pocket expenses
  3. 3 Discretion as to costs in Class 4 proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant, having been successful in the substantive proceedings and not engaged in disentitling conduct, is entitled to its costs on a party-party basis. The circumstances did not justify indemnity costs, as the Respondents' conduct was not so unreasonable as to warrant such an order, nor was there any improper purpose.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Applicant (Ballina Shire Council) on a party-party basis; application for indemnity costs refused; application for out of pocket expenses by Respondents refused.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.