Turk v Hunt and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 27

Turk v Hunt and Anor [2001] NSWLEC 27

Where proceedings are settled prior to a hearing on the merits, and both parties acted reasonably, the proper exercise of discretion is to make no order as to costs, even when settlement offers reflect the outcome accepted by the parties.

Parties
Applicant: Lois Agnes Turk; Respondent: John William Hunt; Respondent: Maria Therese Hunt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings (encroachment) / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Substantive Proceedings
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Encroachment, Costs, Settlement
Property Law Civil Procedure Encroachment Costs Settlement

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lois Agnes Turk

Applicant

John William Hunt

Respondent

Maria Therese Hunt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 3 Proceedings (encroachment) / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Substantive Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs should be made following settlement of an encroachment dispute
  2. 2 Whether offers of settlement should affect the costs determination

Ratio Decidendi

Where proceedings are settled prior to a hearing on the merits, and both parties acted reasonably, the proper exercise of discretion is to make no order as to costs, even when settlement offers reflect the outcome accepted by the parties.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Exhibits may be returned