Matic v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 1220

Matic v Mid-Western Regional Council (No 3) [2009] NSWLEC 1220

It is not fair and reasonable to make an order for costs in favour of the applicant because the preliminary question was not determinative of the proceedings, the course taken was at the applicant’s instigation and opposed by the respondent, the separation did not save significant time or costs, and the overall circumstances do not justify a departure from the ordinary rule that parties bear their own costs.

Parties
Applicant: Branaslav Matic; Respondent: Mid-Western Regional Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Costs Application / Costs Application Following Final Orders
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; applicant to pay respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion
Legal Topics
Costs in Class 1 Land and Environment Court Proceedings, Preliminary Questions, Development Consent Appeals
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs in Class 1 Land and Environment Court Proceedings Preliminary Questions Development Consent Appeals

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Branaslav Matic

Applicant

Mid-Western Regional Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Appeal Costs Application / Costs Application Following Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is fair and reasonable to award costs to the applicant for the preliminary question determined by Jagot J
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of r 3.7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007

Ratio Decidendi

It is not fair and reasonable to make an order for costs in favour of the applicant because the preliminary question was not determinative of the proceedings, the course taken was at the applicant’s instigation and opposed by the respondent, the separation did not save significant time or costs, and the overall circumstances do not justify a departure from the ordinary rule that parties bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; applicant to pay respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 21 January 2009 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion filed 21 January 2009, as agreed or assessed.