Conomos v Mosman Municipal Council (3) [2005] NSWLEC 274

Conomos v Mosman Municipal Council (3) [2005] NSWLEC 274

Counsel's fees were disallowed because briefing Counsel was not necessitated by the complexity of the motion, so those fees were not reasonable costs to be borne by the applicant. The solicitors' costs of $1,325.00 plus GST were allowed because, although the five hours included work involving Counsel, if Counsel had not been briefed the solicitors may have incurred more time preparing the case, and the amount was reasonable on balance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Development Consent / Determination of Quantum of Costs for the Respondent's Costs Application After the Applicant's Unsuccessful Costs Application
Outcome
Subject to the concurrence of the Chief Judge, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $1,325.00 plus GST for the motion heard on 28 February 2005.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'costs of Motion' 'quantum of Costs' "counsel's Fees" "solicitors' Professional Costs"]
['planning and Environment Law' 'costs'] ['development Consent' 'costs of Motion' 'quantum of Costs' "counsel's Fees" "solicitors' Professional 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

Costs Development Consent / Determination of Quantum of Costs for the Respondent's Costs Application After the Applicant's Unsuccessful Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What quantum of costs should be awarded to the respondent for the motion heard on 28 February 2005.' "Whether the respondent's counsel's fees were reasonable costs to be borne by the applicant." "Whether the respondent's solicitors' professional costs of $1,325.00 plus GST were reasonable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Counsel's fees were disallowed because briefing Counsel was not necessitated by the complexity of the motion, so those fees were not reasonable costs to be borne by the applicant. The solicitors' costs of $1,325.00 plus GST were allowed because, although the five hours included work involving Counsel, if Counsel had not been briefed the solicitors may have incurred more time preparing the case, and the amount was reasonable on balance.

Court Disposition

Subject to the concurrence of the Chief Judge, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $1,325.00 plus GST for the motion heard on 28 February 2005.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant pay the Respondent's costs of $1,325.00 (plus GST) for the motion heard on 28 February 2005."]