Cessnock City Council v Rush [2012] NSWLEC 178

Cessnock City Council v Rush [2012] NSWLEC 178

Because the substantive consent orders substantially achieved the relief sought by the Council, there was sufficient capitulation to justify a partial costs order in the Council's favour for one eleventh of its costs up to and including 15 June 2012 from each of Mr Ryan and Mr Parker. However, they did not act so unreasonably after 15 June 2012 as to warrant all of the Council's later costs, they agreed to orders shortly after receiving the Points of Claim, and no disentitling conduct by the Council was established. The recoverable costs were limited to prevent the order operating punitively, excluding senior counsel's fees and allowing only reasonable costs, including half of the costs...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Concerning Costs / Application for Costs After Consent Orders Quashing the Delegation Resolution Had Been Made
Outcome
Partial costs award in favour of the Council; final quantified orders deferred pending conferral between the parties.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion in Class 4 Proceedings' 'consent Orders' 'costs Where No Hearing on the Merits' 'delegation Resolution by Councillors']
['costs' 'local Government' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Discretion in Class 4 Proceedings' 'consent Orders' 'costs Where No Hearing on the Merits' 'delegation Resolution by Councillors']

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 Concerning Costs / Application for Costs After Consent Orders Quashing the Delegation Resolution Had Been Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Council should be awarded costs against the Fourth and Seventh Respondents after consent orders were made.' 'Whether the Fourth and Seventh Respondents acted unreasonably by not consenting to orders before the first mention on 15 June 2012.' 'Whether the Council engaged in disentitling conduct affecting any costs award.' 'What limitations should be imposed on any costs recovered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the substantive consent orders substantially achieved the relief sought by the Council, there was sufficient capitulation to justify a partial costs order in the Council's favour for one eleventh of its costs up to and including 15 June 2012 from each of Mr Ryan and Mr Parker. However, they did not act so unreasonably after 15 June 2012 as to warrant all of the Council's later costs, they agreed to orders shortly after receiving the Points of Claim, and no disentitling conduct by the Council was established. The recoverable costs were limited to prevent the order operating punitively, excluding senior counsel's fees and allowing only reasonable costs, including half of the costs...

Court Disposition

Partial costs award in favour of the Council; final quantified orders deferred pending conferral between the parties.

Orders

  • ['The Council should be awarded one eleventh of its costs up to and including 15 June 2012 from each of the Fourth and Seventh Respondents, subject to limitations.' "Any costs recovered must not include senior counsel's fees, must include only one set of solicitor's fees, and must otherwise be reasonable." 'The...