Perre v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWLEC 51

Perre v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWLEC 51

There was a sound reason to make no costs order up to the commencement of the costs hearing because the parties acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings, the respondents' conduct reasonably led to the conclusion that litigation was necessary, a supervening event rendered the proceedings pointless when the Department advised that it would not proceed with the compulsory acquisition under the proposed acquisition notices, and the applicants thereafter acted reasonably in bringing the matter back before the Court rather than proceeding to final hearing. Competing considerations against the applicants, including ignored prayers and the erroneous joinder of the Trust, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Discontinued Judicial Review Proceedings in Class 4 of the Land and Environment Court's Jurisdiction Concerning Proposed Acquisition Notices / Costs Motions Following Discontinuance
Outcome
The parties were ordered to pay their own costs of the proceedings until the commencement of the hearing on 16 April 2009, and the costs of that hearing were reserved.
Legal Topics
['costs of Discontinued Proceedings' 'discretion as to Costs' 'proposed Acquisition Notices' 'south West Rail Link' 'part 3 a Project Approval']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'environmental Planning and Assessment' 'compulsory Acquisition'] ['costs of Discontinued Proceedings' 'discretion as to Costs' 'proposed Acquisition Notices' 'south West Rail Link' 'part 3 a Project Approval']

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

Discontinued Judicial Review Proceedings in Class 4 of the Land and Environment Court's Jurisdiction Concerning Proposed Acquisition Notices / Costs Motions Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a costs order should be made against the applicants or the respondents, or whether there should be no costs order, after discontinued judicial review proceedings.' 'Whether there was a sound positive ground or good reason to depart from the ordinary costs consequence under UCPR 42.19 for discontinued proceedings.' "Whether the history of the proposed acquisition notices and the respondents' conduct made the proceedings futile by a supervening event rather than by surrender or abandonment." "Whether the applicants' grounds challenging the validity of the proposed acquisition notices were arguable for the purposes of the costs discretion."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was a sound reason to make no costs order up to the commencement of the costs hearing because the parties acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings, the respondents' conduct reasonably led to the conclusion that litigation was necessary, a supervening event rendered the proceedings pointless when the Department advised that it would not proceed with the compulsory acquisition under the proposed acquisition notices, and the applicants thereafter acted reasonably in bringing the matter back before the Court rather than proceeding to final hearing. Competing considerations against the applicants, including ignored prayers and the erroneous joinder of the Trust, and...

Court Disposition

The parties were ordered to pay their own costs of the proceedings until the commencement of the hearing on 16 April 2009, and the costs of that hearing were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to pay their own costs of the proceedings until the commencement of the hearing on 16 April 2009.' 'The costs of the hearing on 16 April 2009 are reserved. Any application for an order for such costs is to be made by arranging with the Registrar within seven days for the matter to be re-listed...