Fuller v Bellingen Shire Council & Anor [1988] NSWLEC 126

Fuller v Bellingen Shire Council & Anor [1988] NSWLEC 126

Although the respondents were successful, this was not a case in which costs should automatically follow the event because the applicant properly brought public interest litigation concerning unusual Council procedures and ambiguous resolutions; however, the second respondent was entitled to limited costs from 9th May, 1988, but not costs for senior counsel or two counsel.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Concerning the Lawfulness of a Development Consent / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Application for Declarations and Orders
Outcome
No order for costs in favour of the first respondent; applicant ordered to pay limited costs of the second respondent.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'public Interest Litigation' 'costs' 'class 4 Jurisdiction']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['development Consent' 'public Interest Litigation' 'costs' 'class 4 Jurisdiction']

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 Proceedings Concerning the Lawfulness of a Development Consent / Costs Determination After Dismissal of Application for Declarations and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should follow the event after dismissal of Class 4 proceedings.' "Whether the applicant's claimed public interest role justified departure from the usual costs rule." 'Whether the second respondent should receive costs for two counsel.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents were successful, this was not a case in which costs should automatically follow the event because the applicant properly brought public interest litigation concerning unusual Council procedures and ambiguous resolutions; however, the second respondent was entitled to limited costs from 9th May, 1988, but not costs for senior counsel or two counsel.

Court Disposition

No order for costs in favour of the first respondent; applicant ordered to pay limited costs of the second respondent.

Orders

  • ['No order for costs with respect to the first respondent.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the second respondent of or in relation to proceedings in this Court on and from 9th May, 1988, but not including costs for senior counsel.']