Centro Properties Limited v Hurstville City Council & Anor [2004] NSWLEC 718

Centro Properties Limited v Hurstville City Council & Anor [2004] NSWLEC 718

The applicant was the successful party, but a special costs order was appropriate because its water and sewerage argument was entirely without foundation and should not have been brought. The geo-technical issue, although unsuccessful, was not so hopeless that it warranted a further departure from the usual rule. Because the water and sewerage issue occupied only a small portion of the proceedings, the applicant should recover eighty-five percent of its costs. The second respondent, having elected to play an active role in defending the Council's decision, was amenable to a costs order along with the first respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Proceedings Concerning Invalid Development Consent / Judgment on Costs After Judgment Declaring Development Consent No 2002/0252 Invalid and Restraining Action Upon the Consent
Outcome
The respondents were ordered to pay eighty-five percent of the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['invalid Development Consent' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'mixed Success on Issues' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'costs' 'administrative Law'] ['invalid Development Consent' 'apportionment of Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'mixed Success on Issues' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions']

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

Costs Application in Proceedings Concerning Invalid Development Consent / Judgment on Costs After Judgment Declaring Development Consent No 2002/0252 Invalid and Restraining Action Upon the Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive all of its costs after succeeding in having the development consent declared invalid but failing on some issues.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned because the applicant failed on the geo-technical issue and the water and sewerage issue.' "Whether the second respondent should bear costs given its active role in defending the Council's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was the successful party, but a special costs order was appropriate because its water and sewerage argument was entirely without foundation and should not have been brought. The geo-technical issue, although unsuccessful, was not so hopeless that it warranted a further departure from the usual rule. Because the water and sewerage issue occupied only a small portion of the proceedings, the applicant should recover eighty-five percent of its costs. The second respondent, having elected to play an active role in defending the Council's decision, was amenable to a costs order along with the first respondent.

Court Disposition

The respondents were ordered to pay eighty-five percent of the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay eight-five percent of the applicant's costs."]