Bowers v Northern Beaches Council and Anor (No 3) [2022] NSWLEC 47

Bowers v Northern Beaches Council and Anor (No 3) [2022] NSWLEC 47

It was appropriate to award costs against Mr Bowers because he brought the motion, filed no submissions or evidence as directed, did not attend the hearing, and only withdrew the motion on the day it was to be heard. However, although it was not inappropriate or unreasonable for each respondent to prepare submissions, it was not fair and reasonable to require Mr Bowers to pay both respondents' full costs because there was an apparent community of interest between the respondents on the primary point of the motion; therefore he should pay one half of each respondent's costs of the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review Proceedings / Costs of Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Reopen Primary Proceedings, After Withdrawal of the Motion on the Hearing Date
Outcome
The notice of motion filed 24 February 2022 was dismissed, and Mr Bowers was ordered to pay 50% of each respondent's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'notice of Motion to Reopen' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'judicial Review'] ['party/party Costs' 'interlocutory Proceedings' 'notice of Motion to Reopen' 'costs Follow the Event' 'costs Discretion']

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 Judicial Review Proceedings / Costs of Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Reopen Primary Proceedings, After Withdrawal of the Motion on the Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded against Mr Bowers in relation to the notice of motion filed 24 February 2022 after he withdrew it on the day it was to be heard.' "Whether Mr Bowers should be ordered to pay the costs of both respondents, or only part of each respondent's costs, given the apparent community of interest between the respondents."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was appropriate to award costs against Mr Bowers because he brought the motion, filed no submissions or evidence as directed, did not attend the hearing, and only withdrew the motion on the day it was to be heard. However, although it was not inappropriate or unreasonable for each respondent to prepare submissions, it was not fair and reasonable to require Mr Bowers to pay both respondents' full costs because there was an apparent community of interest between the respondents on the primary point of the motion; therefore he should pay one half of each respondent's costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion filed 24 February 2022 was dismissed, and Mr Bowers was ordered to pay 50% of each respondent's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 24 February 2022 is dismissed.' "The applicant, James Bowers, is to pay 50% of Northern Beaches Council's costs of the notice of motion filed 24 February 2022." "The applicant, James Bowers, is to pay 50% of Grigull Custodian Pty Ltd's costs of the notice of motion filed 24 February 2022."]