GPT Re Limited v Wollongong City Council [2006] NSWLEC 658

GPT Re Limited v Wollongong City Council [2006] NSWLEC 658

GPT succeeded in obtaining the relief it sought but succeeded at the substantive hearing only on the severable delegation issue. Because there was no conduct making it fair and just to order GPT to pay Belmorgan's costs of the failed issues, GPT was not ordered to pay those costs; however, GPT was entitled only to the costs attributable to the delegation issue, assessed on a broad-brush basis at 25 percent of the costs of the first hearing. Because the Council filed an early submitting appearance and did not actively defend the main proceedings, while Belmorgan actively defended the delegation issue, the Council's liability was limited to 5 percent and Belmorgan was ordered to pay 20...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Following Successful Challenge to Validity of Development Consent / Costs Hearing After Declaration That Development Consent Was Void and Injunction Against Works
Outcome
Costs apportioned between the respondents; no order as to costs of the costs hearing.
Legal Topics
['apportionment of Costs in Multi Issue Proceedings' 'costs Where Applicant Succeeds on One Severable Issue But Fails on Others' 'liability for Costs of Consent Authority Entering Submitting Appearance' 'development Consent Invalidity']
['costs' 'planning and Environment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['apportionment of Costs in Multi Issue Proceedings' 'costs Where Applicant Succeeds on One Severable Issue But Fails on Others' 'liability for Costs of Consent Authority Entering Submitting Appearance' 'development Consent Invalidity']

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 Following Successful Challenge to Validity of Development Consent / Costs Hearing After Declaration That Development Consent Was Void and Injunction Against Works

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What costs order should be made where GPT obtained a declaration that the development consent was void but failed on all issues except the delegation issue.' "Whether GPT should pay Belmorgan's costs of issues on which GPT failed." "Whether Wollongong City Council, having filed an early submitting appearance, should be liable for any of GPT's costs where Belmorgan actively defended the proceedings." 'What costs order should be made for the second hearing on relief and the third hearing on costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

GPT succeeded in obtaining the relief it sought but succeeded at the substantive hearing only on the severable delegation issue. Because there was no conduct making it fair and just to order GPT to pay Belmorgan's costs of the failed issues, GPT was not ordered to pay those costs; however, GPT was entitled only to the costs attributable to the delegation issue, assessed on a broad-brush basis at 25 percent of the costs of the first hearing. Because the Council filed an early submitting appearance and did not actively defend the main proceedings, while Belmorgan actively defended the delegation issue, the Council's liability was limited to 5 percent and Belmorgan was ordered to pay 20...

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned between the respondents; no order as to costs of the costs hearing.

Orders

  • ["The second respondent pay 20 percent of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the proceedings on 18 and 19 April 2006, as agreed or assessed." "The first respondent pay 5 percent of the applicant's costs of and incidental to the hearing of the proceedings on 18 and 19 April 2006, as agreed or...