Walker v Kempsey Shire Council and Anor. [2001] NSWLEC 84

Walker v Kempsey Shire Council and Anor. [2001] NSWLEC 84

No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the Applicant against the Council to justify a departure from the usual practice of no order as to costs in this context. Similarly, the Council failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting costs against the Applicant. However, the second Respondent, having been wholly successful in resisting the Applicant's motion for costs against him, is entitled to the costs of that motion.

Parties
Applicant: Ellis Walker; First Respondent: Kempsey Shire Council; Second Respondent: John Phillips
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings (planning Appeal) / Ruling on Costs Following Disposal by Consent (save as to Costs)
Outcome
Applicant's and Council's motions for costs dismissed; order that Applicant pay Second Respondent’s costs of the costs motion.
Legal Topics
Costs in Planning Appeals, Exceptional Circumstances for Costs, Deferred Commencement Development Consent
Planning and Environment Law Costs in Planning Appeals Exceptional Circumstances for Costs Deferred Commencement 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellis Walker

Applicant

Kempsey Shire Council

First Respondent

John Phillips

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 1 Proceedings (planning Appeal) / Ruling on Costs Following Disposal by Consent (save as to Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the Court's practice direction on costs in class 1 proceedings disposed of by consent except as to costs
  2. 2 If either party is entitled to a costs order on the competing motions

Ratio Decidendi

No exceptional circumstances were demonstrated by the Applicant against the Council to justify a departure from the usual practice of no order as to costs in this context. Similarly, the Council failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting costs against the Applicant. However, the second Respondent, having been wholly successful in resisting the Applicant's motion for costs against him, is entitled to the costs of that motion.

Court Disposition

Applicant's and Council's motions for costs dismissed; order that Applicant pay Second Respondent’s costs of the costs motion.

Orders

  • Both Applicant’s and Council’s motions for costs dismissed with no order as to costs in either instance.
  • Applicant ordered to pay Second Respondent’s costs of the motion for costs, in a sum agreed or as assessed.