Johnson v Lake Macquarie City Council and Anor (No 3) [1999] NSWLEC 207

Johnson v Lake Macquarie City Council and Anor (No 3) [1999] NSWLEC 207

The respondents were successful at the remitted hearing, the second respondent remained a party and acted responsibly by limiting its participation and costs, and the applicant did not provide evidence or documentary support sufficient to establish that the litigation fell within the concept of public interest litigation. The Court therefore exercised its discretion to order the applicant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the further hearing, including the costs of the costs hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs / Remitted Hearing From Court of Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 21 June 1999
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for the further hearing, including the costs of the hearing on costs.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'remitted Hearing' 'submitting Appearance' 'section 104 a Notice']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'public Interest Litigation' 'remitted Hearing' 'submitting Appearance' 'section 104 a Notice']

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 / Remitted Hearing From Court of Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 21 June 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether costs should follow the respondents' success at the remitted hearing in upholding the effect of the s 104A notice." 'Whether the proceedings should be treated as public interest litigation so as to affect the costs order.' "Whether the second respondent, having made no further substantive submissions and having embraced the council's case, should receive costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were successful at the remitted hearing, the second respondent remained a party and acted responsibly by limiting its participation and costs, and the applicant did not provide evidence or documentary support sufficient to establish that the litigation fell within the concept of public interest litigation. The Court therefore exercised its discretion to order the applicant to pay the first and second respondents' costs of the further hearing, including the costs of the costs hearing.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for the further hearing, including the costs of the hearing on costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents in regard to the further hearing of this matter before me including the costs of today.']