Fairfield City Council v Mangos and Ors. [2004] NSWLEC 689

Fairfield City Council v Mangos and Ors. [2004] NSWLEC 689

The Respondents did not establish grounds to deny the Council its prima facie entitlement to costs as the successful party. The Respondents' offer was not a Part 22 offer of compromise and, treated as a Calderbank offer, did not give the Council everything it ultimately obtained, including enforceable relief and a prima facie costs entitlement. However, the Council's procedural defaults caused unnecessary interlocutory costs, so the costs order should expressly exclude costs incurred in the joinder of the third and fourth Respondents and consequential amendments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement Proceedings Concerning Alleged Unlawful Use of Premises as a Transport Depot / Notice of Motion for Costs After Contested Hearing; Costs Had Been Reserved
Outcome
The costs application was granted in part: the first, second and third Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, with specified interlocutory costs excluded.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 4 Proceedings' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'procedural Defaults' 'land Use Characterisation Under Local Environmental Plan']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs in Class 4 Proceedings' 'offer of Compromise' 'calderbank Offer' 'procedural Defaults' 'land Use Characterisation Under Local Environmental Plan']

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 Civil Enforcement Proceedings Concerning Alleged Unlawful Use of Premises as a Transport Depot / Notice of Motion for Costs After Contested Hearing; Costs Had Been Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful Applicant should receive a costs order in Class 4 proceedings despite procedural defaults at interlocutory stages.' "Whether the Respondents' offer of compromise justified denying or modifying the Applicant's costs entitlement." "Whether costs unnecessarily incurred by the Applicant's procedural defaults should be excluded from any costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents did not establish grounds to deny the Council its prima facie entitlement to costs as the successful party. The Respondents' offer was not a Part 22 offer of compromise and, treated as a Calderbank offer, did not give the Council everything it ultimately obtained, including enforceable relief and a prima facie costs entitlement. However, the Council's procedural defaults caused unnecessary interlocutory costs, so the costs order should expressly exclude costs incurred in the joinder of the third and fourth Respondents and consequential amendments.

Court Disposition

The costs application was granted in part: the first, second and third Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicant's costs, with specified interlocutory costs excluded.

Orders

  • ["The first, second and third Respondents pay the Applicant's costs in the proceedings, excluding all costs incurred at interlocutory stages involving the joinder of the third and fourth Respondents and any consequential amendments to the originating process and the points of claim, in the sum agreed or failing...