Gee v Council of the City of Sydney and Ors [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 144

Gee v Council of the City of Sydney and Ors [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 144

Second Respondents are not entitled to costs as their separate participation duplicated work done by the First Respondent (the Council), and there was no discrete work undertaken beyond submitting appearance. Awarding costs would reward duplication and is not encouraged in these circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Gee; First Respondent: Council of the City of Sydney; Second Respondent: Shauna Alexander; Second Respondent: William Hywall Clark
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment Motion Regarding Entitlement to Costs
Outcome
Second Respondents' application for costs dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs of the Notice of Motion.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Practice With Multiple Respondents, Submitting Appearance, Class 4 Proceedings
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Practice With Multiple Respondents Submitting Appearance Class 4 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Gee

Applicant

Council of the City of Sydney

First Respondent

Shauna Alexander

Second Respondent

William Hywall Clark

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment Motion Regarding Entitlement to Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Second Respondents should be entitled to costs when a submitting appearance save as to costs is filed
  2. 2 Whether awarding costs would duplicate work and be appropriate in this context

Ratio Decidendi

Second Respondents are not entitled to costs as their separate participation duplicated work done by the First Respondent (the Council), and there was no discrete work undertaken beyond submitting appearance. Awarding costs would reward duplication and is not encouraged in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Second Respondents' application for costs dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

  • The Second Respondents' Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2004 be dismissed.
  • Each party pay its costs of the Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2004.