Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2009] NSWCA 415

Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2009] NSWCA 415

The Court was not satisfied that allowing the costs assessment to proceed would impose hardship on the applicant to an extent requiring a stay; given the respondents' willingness to risk the costs of assessment in order to reduce delay if the leave application or appeal failed, the balance favoured allowing the assessment to proceed, while orders were made consistently with not permitting enforcement or commencement by the first respondent as stated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal; Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Costs Orders and Costs Assessment / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Stay Pending Determination of Application for Leave And/or Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion allowed in part; stay relief made but not so as to prevent the costs assessment from proceeding.
Legal Topics
['stay of Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'arguable Grounds of Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant']
['procedure' 'appeals' 'costs'] ['stay of Costs Order' 'costs Assessment' 'arguable Grounds of Appeal' 'self Represented Litigant']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal; Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Costs Orders and Costs Assessment / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Stay Pending Determination of Application for Leave And/or Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs orders should be stayed pending the application for leave and/or appeal.' 'Whether a costs assessment based on those costs orders should also be stayed or prevented from proceeding.' 'Whether permitting the costs assessment to proceed would impose undue hardship on an unrepresented applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that allowing the costs assessment to proceed would impose hardship on the applicant to an extent requiring a stay; given the respondents' willingness to risk the costs of assessment in order to reduce delay if the leave application or appeal failed, the balance favoured allowing the assessment to proceed, while orders were made consistently with not permitting enforcement or commencement by the first respondent as stated.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion allowed in part; stay relief made but not so as to prevent the costs assessment from proceeding.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent not commence a costs assessment in relation to the costs orders made by Lloyd J on 16 July 2009 until the application for leave and/or appeal in this case is determined.' 'The costs of this application be costs in the application for leave and appeal if leave is granted to appeal.']