Paul Sapounas & Anor v Manly Council [2009] NSWLEC 1353

Paul Sapounas & Anor v Manly Council [2009] NSWLEC 1353

Although the applicants had reasonable grounds to commence the proceedings and acted reasonably in deciding to discontinue them, they unreasonably protracted the proceedings by delaying inspection of documents, failing to comply with directions, filing a late and poorly drafted Statement of Facts and Contentions, and pursuing issues of liability that were inappropriate to a merits appeal. It was therefore fair and reasonable to order them to pay the respondent's costs for the period of unnecessary delay from 14 November 2008 to 11 February 2009, and two thirds of the respondent's costs of the costs hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Against a Council Order; Respondent's Application for Costs / Costs Hearing After Applicants Discontinued the Proceedings
Outcome
Costs awarded in part to the respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs After Discontinuance' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order' 'non Discouragement Principle' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings' 'appeal Against Council Order for Landslip and Retaining Wall Works']
['costs' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'planning and Environmental Law'] ['costs After Discontinuance' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order' 'non Discouragement Principle' 'unreasonable Conduct of Proceedings' 'appeal Against Council Order for Landslip and Retaining Wall Works']

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 Against a Council Order; Respondent's Application for Costs / Costs Hearing After Applicants Discontinued the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and reasonable to make a costs order against the applicants after discontinuance of the proceedings.' 'Whether the applicants commenced or continued proceedings without reasonable prospects of success.' 'Whether the applicants acted unreasonably by unnecessarily protracting the proceedings or by conducting them as if they concerned liability rather than a merits appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants had reasonable grounds to commence the proceedings and acted reasonably in deciding to discontinue them, they unreasonably protracted the proceedings by delaying inspection of documents, failing to comply with directions, filing a late and poorly drafted Statement of Facts and Contentions, and pursuing issues of liability that were inappropriate to a merits appeal. It was therefore fair and reasonable to order them to pay the respondent's costs for the period of unnecessary delay from 14 November 2008 to 11 February 2009, and two thirds of the respondent's costs of the costs hearing.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in part to the respondent.

Orders

  • ['That the applicants pay the costs incurred by the respondent in the proceedings from 14 November 2008 to 11 February 2009, as agreed or assessed.' "That the applicants pay two thirds of the respondent's costs of the costs hearing on 21 April 2009, as agreed or assessed."]