Hurstville City Council v Jacobs and Anor [2015] NSWLEC 127

Hurstville City Council v Jacobs and Anor [2015] NSWLEC 127

Because the First Respondent was on notice of the costs hearing, did not appear after being called, and the Applicant's submissions justified a costs order, the Court ordered the First Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs, but, because he was self-represented, made the order conditional on him not notifying the Associate by the specified deadline that he wished to be heard further and required service by email and by placement in his letterbox.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Class 4; Costs / Costs Hearing After Substantive Orders by Consent With Costs Reserved
Outcome
The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings, including the costs hearing, as agreed or assessed, unless he advised the Judge's Associate by 4.30 pm on Friday 31 July 2015 that he wished to be heard further to dispute the application.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'service of Orders' 'self Represented Litigant' 'proceeding in Absence']
['costs'] ['costs Orders' 'service of Orders' 'self Represented Litigant' 'proceeding in Absence']

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; Costs / Costs Hearing After Substantive Orders by Consent With Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the First Respondent should be ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings, including the costs hearing." "Whether the costs application could be dealt with in the First Respondent's absence." 'What service and further-hearing arrangements should be made given the First Respondent was self-represented.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the First Respondent was on notice of the costs hearing, did not appear after being called, and the Applicant's submissions justified a costs order, the Court ordered the First Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs, but, because he was self-represented, made the order conditional on him not notifying the Associate by the specified deadline that he wished to be heard further and required service by email and by placement in his letterbox.

Court Disposition

The First Respondent was ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings, including the costs hearing, as agreed or assessed, unless he advised the Judge's Associate by 4.30 pm on Friday 31 July 2015 that he wished to be heard further to dispute the application.

Orders

  • ["The First Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings, including of this costs hearing, as agreed or assessed unless the First Respondent advises my Associate by 4.30 pm on Friday 31 July 2015 that he wishes to be heard further to dispute the application." "The Applicant is to serve a copy of...