Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council (No 2) [2022] FCA 69

Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council (No 2) [2022] FCA 69

The substantive success on the interlocutory application lay with the Council, as the dominant matters in controversy concerned the para 1 documents, for which the Council’s submissions prevailed: the Council secured orders for their production. While the Council was unsuccessful on the para 2 documents, this justified only a partial reduction in costs awarded. Accordingly, the applicants should pay 70% of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.

Parties
First Applicant: Sunland Group Limited; Second Applicant: Sunland Developments No 22 Pty Ltd; Respondent: Gold Coast City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Corporations Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Applicants to pay 70% of the respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
Legal Professional Privilege, Waiver of Privilege, Costs of Interlocutory Applications
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Waiver of Privilege Costs of Interlocutory Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunland Group Limited

First Applicant

Sunland Developments No 22 Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Gold Coast City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Corporations Interlocutory Application / Costs Determination Following Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned given mixed success in interlocutory application involving waiver of legal professional privilege.

Ratio Decidendi

The substantive success on the interlocutory application lay with the Council, as the dominant matters in controversy concerned the para 1 documents, for which the Council’s submissions prevailed: the Council secured orders for their production. While the Council was unsuccessful on the para 2 documents, this justified only a partial reduction in costs awarded. Accordingly, the applicants should pay 70% of the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.

Court Disposition

Applicants to pay 70% of the respondent's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • The applicants pay 70% of the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the interlocutory application the subject of the decision in Sunland Group Limited v Gold Coast City Council [2021] FCA 1473.
  • Pursuant to s 23 and s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), rule 1.32 and rule 1.36 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, these orders and the reasons for judgment in support of these orders are made and published from Chambers.