Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning & Anor (No. 2) [2006] NSWLEC 718

Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning & Anor (No. 2) [2006] NSWLEC 718

Despite the public interest character of the litigation, the traditional principle is that the successful party should be compensated for their costs unless their conduct disentitles them. In this case, there is no disentitling conduct. Both respondents were properly joined, each presented different aspects of the defence, and it is appropriate that the applicant pays the costs of both. The abandonment of some claims at the hearing was sensibly done and should not attract indemnity costs, to avoid discouraging the proper abandonment of unwinnable claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs
Outcome
Applicant to pay the costs of each respondent on the usual party and party basis; no order for indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'development Consent' 'indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'planning Law'] ['costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'development Consent' 'indemnity 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

Application for Judicial Review / Post Judgment: Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event in public interest litigation' 'Whether the applicant should pay the costs of both respondents' 'Whether indemnity costs are appropriate due to late abandonment of claims']

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the public interest character of the litigation, the traditional principle is that the successful party should be compensated for their costs unless their conduct disentitles them. In this case, there is no disentitling conduct. Both respondents were properly joined, each presented different aspects of the defence, and it is appropriate that the applicant pays the costs of both. The abandonment of some claims at the hearing was sensibly done and should not attract indemnity costs, to avoid discouraging the proper abandonment of unwinnable claims.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay the costs of each respondent on the usual party and party basis; no order for indemnity costs.

Orders

  • ['Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent.' 'Applicant pay the costs of the Second Respondent.']