Bungendore Residents Group Incorporated v Palerang Council and Anor. [2005] NSWLEC 235

Bungendore Residents Group Incorporated v Palerang Council and Anor. [2005] NSWLEC 235

Security for costs was justified because, although the Applicant's case appeared to be more than arguable, it was not overwhelming; the Applicant had recently incorporated shortly before commencing proceedings; there was no substantial evidence of its assets or membership; it was more probable than not that incorporation was intended to limit liability, including costs liability; and the Applicant was unlikely to be able to satisfy an adverse costs order. The Second Respondent's estimate of about $42,000 was grossly excessive, and $15,000 was an adequate and fair amount of security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Challenging the Validity of Development Consents / Second Respondent's Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Second Respondent's application for security for costs granted in part.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'development Consents' 'incorporated Associations' 'validity Challenge' 'local Environmental Plan Compliance']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'civil Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['security for Costs' 'development Consents' 'incorporated Associations' 'validity Challenge' 'local Environmental Plan Compliance']

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 Proceedings Challenging the Validity of Development Consents / Second Respondent's Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant should be ordered to provide security for the Second Respondent's costs under Land and Environment Court Act 1979, s 69(3)." 'Whether the amount of security sought by the Second Respondent was appropriate.' "Whether the Applicant's recent incorporation, likely lack of assets, and the strength of its case justified an order for security for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was justified because, although the Applicant's case appeared to be more than arguable, it was not overwhelming; the Applicant had recently incorporated shortly before commencing proceedings; there was no substantial evidence of its assets or membership; it was more probable than not that incorporation was intended to limit liability, including costs liability; and the Applicant was unlikely to be able to satisfy an adverse costs order. The Second Respondent's estimate of about $42,000 was grossly excessive, and $15,000 was an adequate and fair amount of security.

Court Disposition

Second Respondent's application for security for costs granted in part.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant shall provide within 28 days the Court with security in a form acceptable to the Court in the sum of $15,000 in respect of the second Respondent's costs." "The costs of the hearing of the second Respondent's Notice of Motion seeking security for costs be costs in the cause." 'Stand over for mention...