City Forum Pty Limited v Leichhardt Council (2) [2005] NSWLEC 535

City Forum Pty Limited v Leichhardt Council (2) [2005] NSWLEC 535

It was not fair and reasonable to require the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005 because there was nothing unusual warranting departure from the general position that each party bears its own costs in Class 1 proceedings, the applicant was entitled to have the case determined, and the additional evidence and expense were generated by issues requiring clarification. However, it was fair and reasonable to require the applicant to pay the respondent's reasonable costs thrown away by the vacation of the 11 May 2005 hearing because that adjournment resulted from the applicant's late submission of amended plans. The respondent was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Respect of a Development Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Notice of Motion for Costs After the Applicant Succeeded in the Merit Appeal and Obtained Conditional Approval
Outcome
The respondent's application for costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005 was dismissed, but the respondent was awarded costs thrown away by the vacation of the 11 May 2005 hearing and costs of the costs application; the applicant's costs application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away by Adjournment' 'late Submission of Amended Plans' 'development Application for Demolition, Remediation, Alterations, Additions, Basement Car Parking and Strata Subdivision']
['costs' 'planning and Environment' 'development Consent'] ['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order' 'costs Thrown Away by Adjournment' 'late Submission of Amended Plans' 'development Application for Demolition, Remediation, Alterations, Additions, Basement Car Parking and Strata Subdivision']

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 Respect of a Development Appeal Under S 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Notice of Motion for Costs After the Applicant Succeeded in the Merit Appeal and Obtained Conditional Approval

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005." "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the vacation of the hearing on 11 May 2005 caused by late submission of amended plans." 'Whether either party should receive costs of the costs application.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair and reasonable to require the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005 because there was nothing unusual warranting departure from the general position that each party bears its own costs in Class 1 proceedings, the applicant was entitled to have the case determined, and the additional evidence and expense were generated by issues requiring clarification. However, it was fair and reasonable to require the applicant to pay the respondent's reasonable costs thrown away by the vacation of the 11 May 2005 hearing because that adjournment resulted from the applicant's late submission of amended plans. The respondent was...

Court Disposition

The respondent's application for costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005 was dismissed, but the respondent was awarded costs thrown away by the vacation of the 11 May 2005 hearing and costs of the costs application; the applicant's costs application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pays the respondent's costs of $6,257.00 (GST exclusive), thrown away by the vacation of the hearing on 11 May 2005." "The respondent's application for the respondent's costs of the proceedings from 14 December 2004 to 7 July 2005 is dismissed." "The applicant pays the respondent's costs of the...