Liverpool City Council v Australian Friction Industries Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 454

Liverpool City Council v Australian Friction Industries Pty Ltd [2006] NSWLEC 454

Where a party surrenders by consenting to orders substantially as claimed by the other, the proper exercise of the costs discretion is to make the usual order for costs unless disentitling conduct is proven; in this case, no such conduct was established, so the respondents must pay the applicant's costs.

Parties
Applicant: Liverpool City Council; First Respondent: Australian Friction Industries Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Australian Brake Lining Co Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Darko Nemanic; Third Respondent: Hui Ping Nemanic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Enforcement / Post Settlement, Costs Determination
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs as agreed or assessed, jointly and severally. No liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
Costs, Settlement Without Hearing, Disentitling Conduct
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Costs Settlement Without Hearing Disentitling Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liverpool City Council

Applicant

Australian Friction Industries Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Australian Brake Lining Co Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Darko Nemanic

Third Respondent

Hui Ping Nemanic

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Enforcement / Post Settlement, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs where substantive relief has been granted by consent and whether any disentitling conduct should affect the costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party surrenders by consenting to orders substantially as claimed by the other, the proper exercise of the costs discretion is to make the usual order for costs unless disentitling conduct is proven; in this case, no such conduct was established, so the respondents must pay the applicant's costs.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay applicant's costs as agreed or assessed, jointly and severally. No liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay applicant's costs as agreed or assessed, with respondents jointly and severally liable.