Bungendore Residents Group Inc v Palerang Council and Anor (No 5) [2007] NSWLEC 703

Bungendore Residents Group Inc v Palerang Council and Anor (No 5) [2007] NSWLEC 703

The Applicant was largely successful in establishing substantial breaches of the EP&A Act and was not disentitled to its costs merely because it failed on some grounds or incurred costs responding to matters raised in the proceedings. However, because the Council filed an early submitting appearance and did not participate in the substantive hearing, security for costs application or discretionary hearing, it did not contribute to the length and complexity of those parts of the proceedings. A broad apportionment, rather than issue-by-issue calculation, required the First Respondent to pay 25 per cent and the Second Respondent to pay 75 per cent of the Applicant's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Development Consent / Judgment on Costs After Declarations and Orders Were Made
Outcome
Applicant awarded costs apportioned between the Respondents.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Invalidity' 'submitting Appearance' 'apportionment of Costs' 'multiple Issue Proceedings' 'judicial Review of Council Decision Making']
['environmental Planning Law' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['development Consent Invalidity' 'submitting Appearance' 'apportionment of Costs' 'multiple Issue Proceedings' 'judicial Review of Council Decision Making']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Development Consent / Judgment on Costs After Declarations and Orders Were Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful Applicant should receive all of its costs despite not succeeding on every ground of challenge.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned between the First Respondent council, which filed an early submitting appearance save as to costs, and the Second Respondent beneficiary of the development consent.' 'Whether particular costs relating to security for costs, expert evidence, the discretionary hearing and a late ground of challenge were unnecessarily incurred or should not be borne by the Council.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was largely successful in establishing substantial breaches of the EP&A Act and was not disentitled to its costs merely because it failed on some grounds or incurred costs responding to matters raised in the proceedings. However, because the Council filed an early submitting appearance and did not participate in the substantive hearing, security for costs application or discretionary hearing, it did not contribute to the length and complexity of those parts of the proceedings. A broad apportionment, rather than issue-by-issue calculation, required the First Respondent to pay 25 per cent and the Second Respondent to pay 75 per cent of the Applicant's costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant awarded costs apportioned between the Respondents.

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent is to pay 25 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed." "The Second Respondent is to pay 75 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed." 'The exhibits may be returned.']