Fairfield City Council v Holroyd City Council and Anor [1999] NSWLEC 232

Fairfield City Council v Holroyd City Council and Anor [1999] NSWLEC 232

Although the applicant failed on most grounds, it succeeded on one substantive ground entitling it prima facie to costs. The applicant should only be deprived of costs relating to issues devoid of merit; costs are appropriately apportioned accordingly. The second respondent, having actively participated but not succeeded, should bear its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Costs Decision Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs partially awarded to applicant; no costs order for second respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'judicial Discretion in Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'judicial Discretion in Costs']

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 Proceedings / Costs Decision Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether successful applicant should be entitled to costs and from which respondent' 'Whether there should be any contribution or apportionment of costs between respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant failed on most grounds, it succeeded on one substantive ground entitling it prima facie to costs. The applicant should only be deprived of costs relating to issues devoid of merit; costs are appropriately apportioned accordingly. The second respondent, having actively participated but not succeeded, should bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Costs partially awarded to applicant; no costs order for second respondent.

Orders

  • ['Holroyd City Council to pay 80% of the costs of Fairfield City Council, including costs of this application.' 'No order for the costs of the second respondent or costs of this motion.' 'The exhibits may be returned.' 'The above orders do not affect the orders made by the Court for costs on 21 July 1999.']