Saidi v Farajpour [2022] NSWLEC 77

Saidi v Farajpour [2022] NSWLEC 77

It was not fair and reasonable to award the Applicants their costs because the substantive orders made in the tree dispute were significantly less than the relief sought in their Tree Dispute Application. Because the Applicants' costs application failed, the Respondents were entitled to their costs of the costs proceedings, and a gross sum order was appropriate to avoid further time and expense.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Class 2 Tree Dispute Proceedings / Costs Hearing After Substantive Tree Dispute Decision
Outcome
Applicants' costs application dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay Respondents' costs of the costs proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs in Tree Dispute Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'costs of Costs Hearing' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'high Hedges and Sunlight Access']
['costs' 'land and Environment' 'tree Disputes'] ['costs in Tree Dispute Proceedings' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Orders' 'costs of Costs Hearing' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'high Hedges and Sunlight Access']

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 Class 2 Tree Dispute Proceedings / Costs Hearing After Substantive Tree Dispute Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and reasonable under r 3.7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 to award the Applicants costs of the substantive tree dispute proceedings.' "Whether the Respondents should receive their costs of the costs proceedings after the Applicants' costs application was rejected." 'Whether a gross sum costs order should be made for the costs proceedings pursuant to s 98 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair and reasonable to award the Applicants their costs because the substantive orders made in the tree dispute were significantly less than the relief sought in their Tree Dispute Application. Because the Applicants' costs application failed, the Respondents were entitled to their costs of the costs proceedings, and a gross sum order was appropriate to avoid further time and expense.

Court Disposition

Applicants' costs application dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay Respondents' costs of the costs proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The costs application of the Applicants is dismissed.' "The Applicants are to pay the Respondents' costs of the costs proceedings in the gross sum of $4,875 within 28 days of these orders."]