Lif Pty Limited v Wagga Wagga City Council & Anor [2006] NSWLEC 766

Lif Pty Limited v Wagga Wagga City Council & Anor [2006] NSWLEC 766

The court held that the facts did not show the second respondent surrendered to the applicant or caused satisfaction of the claim. Rather, the proceedings were resolved by a supervening event—second development consent remaining on foot—which did not warrant an order for costs in favour of either party. Each party is to pay its own costs of the class 4 application, but the applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs of the notice of motion dated 15 November 2006.

Parties
Applicant: Lif Pty Limited; First Respondent: Wagga Wagga City Council; Second Respondent: Wagga Mill Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance
Outcome
Each party to pay its own costs for the class 4 application; applicant to pay second respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 15 November 2006.
Legal Topics
Costs, Discontinuance, Development Consent, Supervening Event
Planning Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Discontinuance Development Consent Supervening Event

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lif Pty Limited

Applicant

Wagga Wagga City Council

First Respondent

Wagga Mill Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the party surrendered to another party and satisfied the claim
  2. 2 Whether a supervening event occurred warranting no order as to costs
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs after discontinuance

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the facts did not show the second respondent surrendered to the applicant or caused satisfaction of the claim. Rather, the proceedings were resolved by a supervening event—second development consent remaining on foot—which did not warrant an order for costs in favour of either party. Each party is to pay its own costs of the class 4 application, but the applicant is ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs of the notice of motion dated 15 November 2006.

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its own costs for the class 4 application; applicant to pay second respondent's costs of the notice of motion dated 15 November 2006.

Orders

  • The applicant's notice of motion dated 15 November 2006 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs of that motion as agreed or as assessed.