Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 163

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2011] NSWLEC 163

The applicant was ordered to pay all respondents' costs because the amended notice of motion had been dismissed on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, procedural inappropriateness, failure to justify discovery, and absence of evidence for serious misconduct allegations; the applicant adduced no evidence sufficient to engage the public interest costs discretion under LECR 4.2; and the motion affected the entire proceedings, making it appropriate for all respondents, including the second and third respondents, to resist it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Costs Application Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion / Costs Determined After Dismissal of Amended Notice of Motion Dated 1 July 2011 During Case Management
Outcome
Costs ordered against the applicant; further case management orders and directions made.
Legal Topics
['costs Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion' 'public Interest Costs Discretion' 'land and Environment Court Rule 4.2' 'jurisdiction' 'case Management']
['land and Environment' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion' 'public Interest Costs Discretion' 'land and Environment Court Rule 4.2' 'jurisdiction' 'case Management']

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 Proceedings; Costs Application Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion / Costs Determined After Dismissal of Amended Notice of Motion Dated 1 July 2011 During Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of the amended notice of motion dismissed on 9 August 2011." 'Whether the Court should depart from the ordinary costs rule because the proceedings were brought in the public interest under Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 Pt 4 r 4.2.' 'Whether the second and third respondents should receive costs where the notice of motion affected the entirety of the proceedings, including development consent challenges.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was ordered to pay all respondents' costs because the amended notice of motion had been dismissed on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, procedural inappropriateness, failure to justify discovery, and absence of evidence for serious misconduct allegations; the applicant adduced no evidence sufficient to engage the public interest costs discretion under LECR 4.2; and the motion affected the entire proceedings, making it appropriate for all respondents, including the second and third respondents, to resist it.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered against the applicant; further case management orders and directions made.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of all respondents in relation to the amended notice of notion dated 1 July 2011.' 'I make orders and give directions in accordance with the draft orders distributed to Mr Jeray and the legal representatives of the respondent in the course of the conduct of case management...