Di Francesco & Ors v Blantrix Pty Limited & Ors [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 120

Di Francesco & Ors v Blantrix Pty Limited & Ors [No 2] [2005] NSWLEC 120

The Applicants were largely successful in the substantive proceedings because the major issue was the application of SEPP 60 and the Court had found that a substantial part of the works already undertaken in apartment 4301 and yet to be undertaken in apartment 4302 were not exempt development and required development consent. The amendments and SEPP 60 argument did not unnecessarily prolong the hearing. There was no basis to apportion costs or to treat the First Respondent separately for costs purposes, given the common legal issues, common representation and evidence, and the role of the Third Respondent. The Second and Third Respondents were therefore ordered to pay the Applicants'...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application; Costs Motions / Costs Determination After Substantive Proceedings
Outcome
Applicants' Notice of Motion granted; First Respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'whether Hearing Was Unnecessarily Prolonged' 'exempt Development Under SEPP 60' 'development Consent for Building Works' 'costs Apportionment Between Respondents']
['environmental Planning and Assessment' 'land and Environment Court Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following the Event' 'whether Hearing Was Unnecessarily Prolonged' 'exempt Development Under SEPP 60' 'development Consent for Building Works' 'costs Apportionment Between Respondents']

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 Application; Costs Motions / Costs Determination After Substantive Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicants should have their costs paid by the Second and Third Respondents.' 'Whether the Applicants prolonged the substantive hearing by amendments to pleadings and reliance on different planning instruments.' 'Whether the Applicants were largely successful in the substantive proceedings despite not obtaining declarations or injunctive relief for apartment 4301.' 'Whether the First Respondent should have its costs paid by the Applicants because no order was made in relation to apartment 4301.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants were largely successful in the substantive proceedings because the major issue was the application of SEPP 60 and the Court had found that a substantial part of the works already undertaken in apartment 4301 and yet to be undertaken in apartment 4302 were not exempt development and required development consent. The amendments and SEPP 60 argument did not unnecessarily prolong the hearing. There was no basis to apportion costs or to treat the First Respondent separately for costs purposes, given the common legal issues, common representation and evidence, and the role of the Third Respondent. The Second and Third Respondents were therefore ordered to pay the Applicants'...

Court Disposition

Applicants' Notice of Motion granted; First Respondent's Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["In relation to the Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 24 December 2004, the Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicants' costs of the proceedings." "In relation to the Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 24 December 2004, the Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicants' costs of the motion." "In relation to...