Moseley v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 111

Moseley v Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council (No 3) [2018] NSWLEC 111

Even assuming the Court had power to award costs as discussed in Kovacevic, it was not appropriate to exercise the discretion in the Council's favour. Mr Moseley initially acted unrepresented in criminal proceedings involving reasonably complicated factual and legal issues, and the several short hearings needed to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 6 Environmental Offence Appeal; Costs Application Concerning Stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Application by the Council for Costs Said to Be Thrown Away in Finalising the Stated Case After Dismissal of the Conviction Appeal
Outcome
The Council's application for costs in the stated case is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['environmental Offences' 'development Without Consent' 'stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'power to Award Costs' 'discretion to Award Costs Thrown Away']
['environmental Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'costs' 'planning Law'] ['environmental Offences' 'development Without Consent' 'stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'power to Award Costs' 'discretion to Award Costs Thrown Away']

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

Class 6 Environmental Offence Appeal; Costs Application Concerning Stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal / Application by the Council for Costs Said to Be Thrown Away in Finalising the Stated Case After Dismissal of the Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Land and Environment Court had power to award the Council costs incurred in responding to Mr Moseley's revised stated case." "Whether, if such power existed, the discretion should be exercised to order Mr Moseley to pay the Council's costs of the 23 November 2017 appearance and preparation of written submissions and alternative questions."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the Court had power to award costs as discussed in Kovacevic, it was not appropriate to exercise the discretion in the Council's favour. Mr Moseley initially acted unrepresented in criminal proceedings involving reasonably complicated factual and legal issues, and the several short hearings needed to finalise the stated case were a common consequence of that procedure and of the combined efforts of the parties and the Court, not conduct warranting an adverse costs order.

Court Disposition

The Council's application for costs in the stated case is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Council's application for costs in the stated case is dismissed." 'Each party should pay their own costs of this costs matter.']