Melville v Craig Nowlan & Associates & Anor [2001] NSWLEC 109

Melville v Craig Nowlan & Associates & Anor [2001] NSWLEC 109

Because the applicant was impecunious, would not be able to meet an adverse costs order, and there was no evidence at the preliminary stage that the application had strong prospects of success, the first respondent was entitled to security for costs notwithstanding that the proceedings were public interest litigation. The amount sought was not justified, but the evidence supported an initial security order of $12,500.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application Seeking Declaration and Consequential Orders That Development Consent 2000/0343 Is Void / First Respondent's Notice of Motion for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in favour of the first respondent in the amount of $12,500; proceedings stayed until security is given; costs of the notice of motion reserved.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'impecunious Applicant' 'open Standing Under S 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'challenge to Development Consent']
['environmental Planning Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['security for Costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'impecunious Applicant' 'open Standing Under S 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979' 'challenge to Development Consent']

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 Seeking Declaration and Consequential Orders That Development Consent 2000/0343 Is Void / First Respondent's Notice of Motion for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for the first respondent's costs despite the proceedings being public interest litigation under s 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." 'Whether the Court has power to order security for costs.' 'What amount of security for costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant was impecunious, would not be able to meet an adverse costs order, and there was no evidence at the preliminary stage that the application had strong prospects of success, the first respondent was entitled to security for costs notwithstanding that the proceedings were public interest litigation. The amount sought was not justified, but the evidence supported an initial security order of $12,500.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in favour of the first respondent in the amount of $12,500; proceedings stayed until security is given; costs of the notice of motion reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant give security for the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the proceedings in the amount of $12,500 in a form satisfactory to the Registrar.' 'This notice of motion be adjourned to enable the first respondent to seek a further order for security in the event that the amount ordered as...