Kempsey Shire Council v Thrush (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 130

Despite the hardship facing the First Defendant and unique subjective factors that militated against substantive relief, the successful breach finding and need to support council enforcement justify an award of costs in favour of the Council against the First Defendant, with enforcement of that order stayed for 12 months.

Parties: Applicant: Kempsey Shire Council; First Defendant: Peter Michael Walter Thrush; Second Defendant: Vincent Gullotto
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 29 July 2011
Procedural Posture: Class 4 / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment
Outcome: Costs order made in favour of the Council against the First Defendant, with enforcement postponed 12 months.
Legal Topics: Costs, Enforcement, Development Consent, Coastal Wetlands

Planning and Environment Law Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement Development Consent Coastal Wetlands

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Kempsey Shire Council

Applicant

Peter Michael Walter Thrush

First Defendant

Vincent Gullotto

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Class 4 / Costs Determination After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to award costs and against whom
2 Responsibility for costs in planning enforcement proceedings where some parties are self-represented or of limited means

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Costs order made in favour of the Council against the First Defendant, with enforcement postponed 12 months.

Orders

The Court orders the First Defendant to pay the Council's costs of these proceedings.
This order is not to be enforced for a period of 12 months from the date of this order.