Drummoyne Municipal Council v Burton & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 183

Drummoyne Municipal Council v Burton & Ors [1999] NSWLEC 183

The motion was dismissed because there was no evidence of impropriety or sufficient grounds to set aside the costs order, the court record showed Mr Russo appeared for all three respondents when the costs order was made, the application was delayed, and the public interest in finality and the usual costs position in class 4 proceedings weighed against disturbing the order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Concerning Alleged Use of Premises as a Brothel / Notice of Motion by the Second and Third Respondents to Be Released From a Costs Order Made by the Registrar on 18 December 1997
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['class 4 Proceedings' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders' 'costs Orders' 'finality of Judgments and Orders' 'delay']
['environmental and Planning Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['class 4 Proceedings' 'setting Aside or Varying Orders' 'costs Orders' 'finality of Judgments and Orders' 'delay']

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 Alleged Use of Premises as a Brothel / Notice of Motion by the Second and Third Respondents to Be Released From a Costs Order Made by the Registrar on 18 December 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second and third respondents should be released from the burden of the Registrar's order that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings." 'Whether Part 15 Rule 9 justified setting aside or varying the costs order on the basis that it was made in the absence of a party.' 'Whether delay and the public interest in finality weighed against setting aside the costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because there was no evidence of impropriety or sufficient grounds to set aside the costs order, the court record showed Mr Russo appeared for all three respondents when the costs order was made, the application was delayed, and the public interest in finality and the usual costs position in class 4 proceedings weighed against disturbing the order.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion is dismissed.' "The second and third respondents are ordered to pay the applicant's costs in respect of the notice of motion."]