K R & P C Hayden v Eurobodalla Shire Council [1988] NSWLEC 18

K R & P C Hayden v Eurobodalla Shire Council [1988] NSWLEC 18

Although the Council was not entitled to all costs as costs following the event, it was substantially successful overall because demolition was ordered for one building and substantial works were ordered for the remaining buildings; in the circumstances, including the Council's approach and the owners' late indication that they would carry out rectification works, the proper costs order was that the applicants pay one half of the respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeals Against Notices Served Pursuant to S.317 B(1 A) of the Local Government Act 1919 Directing Demolition of Dwellings / Application for Costs After the Court Allowed the Appeals Against the Notices and Substituted Its Own Orders
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay one half of the respondent Council's costs.
Legal Topics
['demolition Notices' 'unauthorised Structures' 'rectification Works' 'costs Discretion']
['local Government' 'planning and Environment' 'costs'] ['demolition Notices' 'unauthorised Structures' 'rectification Works' 'costs Discretion']

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

Appeals Against Notices Served Pursuant to S.317 B(1 A) of the Local Government Act 1919 Directing Demolition of Dwellings / Application for Costs After the Court Allowed the Appeals Against the Notices and Substituted Its Own Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['How the Court should exercise its discretion as to costs after appeals against demolition notices.' 'Which party was substantially successful in the proceedings.' "Whether the Council's approach to demolition and the owners' response to the Council's invitation affected the costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Council was not entitled to all costs as costs following the event, it was substantially successful overall because demolition was ordered for one building and substantial works were ordered for the remaining buildings; in the circumstances, including the Council's approach and the owners' late indication that they would carry out rectification works, the proper costs order was that the applicants pay one half of the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay one half of the respondent Council's costs.

Orders

  • ['Applicants to pay one half of the costs of the respondent.']