Teoh v Hunters Hill Council and Another (No.3) [2009] NSWLEC 121

Teoh v Hunters Hill Council and Another (No.3) [2009] NSWLEC 121

Mrs Teoh failed to establish any fraud, irregularity, illegality, or conduct against good faith sufficient to satisfy the exceptional threshold for setting aside or reopening a perfected judgment under UCPR 36.15(1). No new material evidence or relevant misconduct was established. The proceedings, while of concern to some local residents, did not qualify as public interest litigation in a sense that would warrant departure from the general 'costs follow the event' rule. Accordingly, the reopening application was dismissed and Mrs Teoh ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Parties
Applicant: Elaine Teoh; First Respondent: Hunters Hill Council; Second Respondent: Ross E Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil (land & Environment Court Proceedings) / Application to Reopen After Perfected Judgment, and Determination of Costs
Outcome
Application to reopen dismissed; costs ordered against applicant
Legal Topics
Reopening Proceedings, Fraud Allegations, Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Development Consent
Civil Procedure Planning and Environment Reopening Proceedings Fraud Allegations Costs Public Interest Litigation Development Consent

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elaine Teoh

Applicant

Hunters Hill Council

First Respondent

Ross E Williams

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Civil (land & Environment Court Proceedings) / Application to Reopen After Perfected Judgment, and Determination of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established grounds to reopen perfected judgment under UCPR 36.15(1) on basis of irregularity, illegality, or lack of good faith
  2. 2 Whether allegations of fraud, procedural unfairness or misconduct required the judgment to be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constituted public interest litigation so as to displace the general rule that costs follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Teoh failed to establish any fraud, irregularity, illegality, or conduct against good faith sufficient to satisfy the exceptional threshold for setting aside or reopening a perfected judgment under UCPR 36.15(1). No new material evidence or relevant misconduct was established. The proceedings, while of concern to some local residents, did not qualify as public interest litigation in a sense that would warrant departure from the general 'costs follow the event' rule. Accordingly, the reopening application was dismissed and Mrs Teoh ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Application to reopen dismissed; costs ordered against applicant

Orders

  • Applicant's Notices of Motion of 4 May 2009 and 14 July 2009 seeking to reopen the proceedings dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay both respondents' costs of the proceedings, including costs of all substantive and interlocutory hearings, on a party-party basis as agreed or assessed according to law.