Trowbridge & Anor v Ledbury & Ors [No 2] [1999] NSWLEC 119

Trowbridge & Anor v Ledbury & Ors [No 2] [1999] NSWLEC 119

The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents because the second respondent was a successful party and issues about the unread affidavit were properly left to assessment, while the council had a legitimate interest in defending its practices and procedures under the EPA Act, its participation did not unnecessarily prolong the hearing, and no special circumstances justified departing from the ordinary rule that a successful party receives costs. No order was made for the first respondent because the first and second respondents were in the same interest and separately no costs order was sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After the Application Was Dismissed and Interlocutory Orders Discharged
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of the second and third respondents; no order as to the first respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['parties in Same Interest Separately Represented' 'costs of Successful Respondents' 'local Council Participation as Contradictor' 'assessment of Costs for Unused Affidavit and Interrogatories']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['parties in Same Interest Separately Represented' 'costs of Successful Respondents' 'local Council Participation as Contradictor' 'assessment of Costs for Unused Affidavit and Interrogatories']

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

Costs / Reasons for Judgment on Costs After the Application Was Dismissed and Interlocutory Orders Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should pay the costs of the first respondent where the first and second respondents had the same representation and were in the same interest.' "Whether the applicants should pay the second respondent's costs including costs associated with an affidavit that was prepared but not read." "Whether the third respondent council should recover its costs despite the applicants' contention that it should have entered a submitting appearance and not acted as an active contradictor." 'Whether costs issues concerning an unread affidavit and unused interrogatory answers should be determined by the Court or left to the assessing officer.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents because the second respondent was a successful party and issues about the unread affidavit were properly left to assessment, while the council had a legitimate interest in defending its practices and procedures under the EPA Act, its participation did not unnecessarily prolong the hearing, and no special circumstances justified departing from the ordinary rule that a successful party receives costs. No order was made for the first respondent because the first and second respondents were in the same interest and separately no costs order was sought.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of the second and third respondents; no order as to the first respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['No order in respect of the costs of the first respondent.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the second respondent, including the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 30 April 1999.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the third respondent, including the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 4 May 1999 but excluding any...