Nada v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 80

Nada v Georges River Council [2017] NSWLEC 80

Agreements made and represented to the Court by legal practitioners that the applicants would pay the respondent's costs—both for amendment of development application and re-opening of proceedings—are enforceable, and there was no relevant delay to disentitle the respondent from seeking such costs. The applicants' withdrawal of their competing motion further supports that costs should follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Applicants' Notice of Motion
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay respondent’s costs as sought in the respondent's notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'development Applications' 'stormwater Management' 're Opening of Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'planning and Environment Law'] ['costs' 'development Applications' 'stormwater Management' 're Opening of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Class 1 / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Applicants' Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants should pay the respondent's costs arising from amendment of development application pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979" 'Whether the applicants should pay costs arising from re-opening of proceedings' 'Whether respondent was disentitled from costs due to alleged delay' 'Whether pursuit of agreed costs offends principle of finality']

Ratio Decidendi

Agreements made and represented to the Court by legal practitioners that the applicants would pay the respondent's costs—both for amendment of development application and re-opening of proceedings—are enforceable, and there was no relevant delay to disentitle the respondent from seeking such costs. The applicants' withdrawal of their competing motion further supports that costs should follow the event.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay respondent’s costs as sought in the respondent's notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs of the re-opening of the proceedings pursuant to r 3.7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007." "The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs thrown away by reason of its amendment of the application on 4 June 2015, pursuant to s 97B of the Environmental...