Norton v Blacktown City Council [2009] NSWLEC 214

Norton v Blacktown City Council [2009] NSWLEC 214

Because the applicant was the named party by whom the proceedings were commenced, conducted and discontinued, the council incurred expense defending those proceedings, the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, and there was no disentitling conduct by the council, the presumptive rule against costs in Class 1 proceedings was displaced and it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the council's costs fixed in the agreed sum of $29,500.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings Concerning an Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application; Costs Motion / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining the Respondent's Costs Motion; Joinder Motion Adjourned
Outcome
Respondent's costs motion granted; joinder motion adjourned to 17 December 2009 and not dealt with in this judgment.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Development Appeal' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings']
['costs' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'discontinuance of Development Appeal' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings']

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 1 Proceedings Concerning an Appeal Against Refusal of a Development Application; Costs Motion / Ex Tempore Judgment Determining the Respondent's Costs Motion; Joinder Motion Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs in Class 1 proceedings after discontinuance." 'Whether the presumptive rule that costs lie where they fall in Class 1 proceedings was displaced because making a costs order was fair and reasonable.' 'Whether the applicant acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was the named party by whom the proceedings were commenced, conducted and discontinued, the council incurred expense defending those proceedings, the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, and there was no disentitling conduct by the council, the presumptive rule against costs in Class 1 proceedings was displaced and it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the council's costs fixed in the agreed sum of $29,500.

Court Disposition

Respondent's costs motion granted; joinder motion adjourned to 17 December 2009 and not dealt with in this judgment.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs incurred in the proceedings fixed in the sum of $29,500." "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]