Lightning Ridge Miners Association Limited v Slack-Smith & Anor (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1083

Lightning Ridge Miners Association Limited v Slack-Smith & Anor (No 2) [2013] NSWLEC 1083

The respondents did not show any rational basis to depart from the r 42.1 presumption that costs follow the event. The s 62(6A) determination was judicial, much of the respondents' material concerning the deed was outside the limited scope of the proceedings, costs are compensatory rather than punitive, and neither party acted inappropriately. The successful applicant was therefore entitled to its costs as agreed or assessed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Class 8 Costs Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Determination on the Papers of Costs Following the Principal Decision in Lightning Ridge Miners Association Limited V Slack Smith & Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1063
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'discretion to Depart From Ordinary Costs Order' 'significant Improvement Under the Mining Act 1992' 'judicial Function of the Land and Environment Court']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'mining Law'] ['costs Following the Event' 'discretion to Depart From Ordinary Costs Order' 'significant Improvement Under the Mining Act 1992' 'judicial Function of the Land and Environment Court']

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 8 Costs Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Determination on the Papers of Costs Following the Principal Decision in Lightning Ridge Miners Association Limited V Slack Smith & Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1063

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court's determination under s 62(6A) of the Mining Act 1992 was an administrative function or a judicial function." 'Whether the discretion under r 42.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 should be exercised to order that each party bear its own costs rather than costs following the event.' 'Whether concerns about a deed between a landholder and the Association justified departure from the usual costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not show any rational basis to depart from the r 42.1 presumption that costs follow the event. The s 62(6A) determination was judicial, much of the respondents' material concerning the deed was outside the limited scope of the proceedings, costs are compensatory rather than punitive, and neither party acted inappropriately. The successful applicant was therefore entitled to its costs as agreed or assessed.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ["The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed (including in costs incurred by the applicant arising out of consideration of the question of costs)."]