Bradford, J v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (NSW) and Hillig, P [2006] NSWLEC 545

Bradford, J v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (NSW) and Hillig, P [2006] NSWLEC 545

The amended application was wholly different from the original application and no longer pursued claims against the first respondent's conduct, with the result that the first respondent lost the benefit of work undertaken on the original application. Affidavit evidence justified the professional and counsel fees claimed, and the applicant filed no evidence or submissions opposing the motion. The first respondent was therefore entitled to costs thrown away and costs of the Notice of Motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application; Notice of Motion for Costs Thrown Away / Notice of Motion Dated 14 July 2006 After Amended Application Filed 29 June 2006; Proceedings Stayed Until 7 Days After Final Determination of Proceedings No. 2482 of 2006 in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Notice of Motion granted.
Legal Topics
['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Application' 'appointment of Administrator to Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant Considerations']
['costs' 'aboriginal Land Rights' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Thrown Away' 'amendment of Application' 'appointment of Administrator to Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council' 'procedural Fairness' 'relevant Considerations']

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 Application; Notice of Motion for Costs Thrown Away / Notice of Motion Dated 14 July 2006 After Amended Application Filed 29 June 2006; Proceedings Stayed Until 7 Days After Final Determination of Proceedings No. 2482 of 2006 in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should pay the first respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the applicant's amended Class 4 application filed 29 June 2006." "Whether the applicant should pay the first respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended application was wholly different from the original application and no longer pursued claims against the first respondent's conduct, with the result that the first respondent lost the benefit of work undertaken on the original application. Affidavit evidence justified the professional and counsel fees claimed, and the applicant filed no evidence or submissions opposing the motion. The first respondent was therefore entitled to costs thrown away and costs of the Notice of Motion.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion granted.

Orders

  • ["That the applicant pay the first respondent's costs thrown away as a result of the applicant's amended application filed 29 June 2006, fixed in the sum of $1,516.75 plus GST." "That the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of this Notice of Motion, either in an amount fixed by the Court or as agreed or...