Deakin v Hunters Hill Municipal Council (No. 2) [2005] NSWLEC 53

Deakin v Hunters Hill Municipal Council (No. 2) [2005] NSWLEC 53

The issues that became determinative of the appeal were before the applicant from the council's notice of refusal and were detailed further in the respondent's issues. The period for preparation of issues and hearing was not unreasonable, and there was no apparent reason within the Court's costs jurisdiction to find that the respondent caused the applicant to throw away costs in preparing for or conducting the appeal. Accordingly, the application for costs was refused and no order as to costs was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal / Application for Costs Following Judgment After Costs Were Reserved
Outcome
Application for costs refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Appeal' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'wasted Costs']
['planning and Environment' 'costs'] ['costs in Class 1 Appeal' 'development Consent' 'heritage Conservation Area' 'wasted Costs']

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 1 Appeal / Application for Costs Following Judgment After Costs Were Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's conduct caused the applicant to incur or throw away costs in the preparation for and conduct of the appeal." 'Whether costs could be awarded for expenses incurred before lodgement of the appeal.' 'Whether there should be no order as to costs so that each party bears its own costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The issues that became determinative of the appeal were before the applicant from the council's notice of refusal and were detailed further in the respondent's issues. The period for preparation of issues and hearing was not unreasonable, and there was no apparent reason within the Court's costs jurisdiction to find that the respondent caused the applicant to throw away costs in preparing for or conducting the appeal. Accordingly, the application for costs was refused and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for costs is refused.' 'No order is made in regard to costs.' 'Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 8 and K are returned to the parties.']