Lesnewski v Mosman Municipal Council & Anor (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 422

Lesnewski v Mosman Municipal Council & Anor (No 2) [2004] NSWLEC 422

The Applicant was largely unsuccessful, especially on critical issues regarding the validity of the development consent and construction certificate; the Second Respondents' limited adverse orders did not constitute disentitling conduct or a significant departure from overall success. Therefore, the Second Respondents are entitled to their costs up to 9 April 2003 and seventy percent of their costs thereafter. The Applicant is not entitled to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Applicant to pay Respondents' costs as set out; no apportionment of costs in Applicant's favour.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'illegal Works' 'development Consent' 'construction Certificate' 'modification of Development Consent']
['administrative Law' 'planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Discretion' 'illegal Works' 'development Consent' 'construction Certificate' 'modification of 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

Class 4 Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Second Respondents are entitled to costs' 'Whether Applicant should receive any part of her costs' 'Whether there was disentitling conduct by successful Defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was largely unsuccessful, especially on critical issues regarding the validity of the development consent and construction certificate; the Second Respondents' limited adverse orders did not constitute disentitling conduct or a significant departure from overall success. Therefore, the Second Respondents are entitled to their costs up to 9 April 2003 and seventy percent of their costs thereafter. The Applicant is not entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant to pay Respondents' costs as set out; no apportionment of costs in Applicant's favour.

Orders

  • ["Applicant to pay the Second Respondents' costs, as agreed or assessed, up to and including 9 April 2003." "Applicant to pay seventy percent of the Second Respondents' costs for the period commencing after 9 April 2003." "Applicant to pay the Second Respondents' costs of their Notice of Motion seeking costs dated...