Fast Buck$ & Anor v Dudley Pastoral Co Pty Ltd & Anor No. 2 (costs) [2002] NSWLEC 16

Fast Buck$ & Anor v Dudley Pastoral Co Pty Ltd & Anor No. 2 (costs) [2002] NSWLEC 16

The first respondent was entitled to its costs because it successfully met the case brought against it, did not unnecessarily prolong the litigation or inequitably increase costs, and none of the applicants' grounds against it were proved. The second respondent was not entitled to costs because, after resolving that condition C6 had been satisfied, the council shortly afterwards sought further soil testing, thereby creating doubt and uncertainty and encouraging the applicants to engage in the litigation; this conduct disentitled it to a costs order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Land and Environment Court Proceedings Following Dismissal of Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Costs After Judgment Dismissing the Application
Outcome
The applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, but no order for costs was made in favour of the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['disentitling Conduct' "successful Party's Entitlement to Costs" 'land Contamination Condition Attached to Development Consent']
['costs' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'judicial Review'] ['disentitling Conduct' "successful Party's Entitlement to Costs" 'land Contamination Condition Attached to Development Consent']

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

Costs Application in Land and Environment Court Proceedings Following Dismissal of Judicial Review Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Costs After Judgment Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful first respondent was entitled to an order that the applicants pay its costs.' 'Whether the successful second respondent, Byron Shire Council, engaged in conduct disentitling it to an order for costs.' "Whether the council's conduct generated doubt and uncertainty which encouraged the applicants to engage in the litigation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent was entitled to its costs because it successfully met the case brought against it, did not unnecessarily prolong the litigation or inequitably increase costs, and none of the applicants' grounds against it were proved. The second respondent was not entitled to costs because, after resolving that condition C6 had been satisfied, the council shortly afterwards sought further soil testing, thereby creating doubt and uncertainty and encouraging the applicants to engage in the litigation; this conduct disentitled it to a costs order.

Court Disposition

The applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, but no order for costs was made in favour of the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['The applicants are to pay the costs of the first respondent as agreed or assessed.' 'That no order for costs be made in favour of the second respondent.']