Cornish v Penrith City Council (No 2) [2024] NSWCATAP 146

Cornish v Penrith City Council (No 2) [2024] NSWCATAP 146

Special circumstances warranted an award of costs because the appeal was lacking in substance, the appellant repeated untenable submissions made at first instance, advanced a new ground at the appeal hearing that the respondent had to address orally, and had been put on notice that the appeal was said to be misconceived and that costs would be sought. A lump sum order was appropriate because the costs claimed were modest, assessment would add disproportionate cost, and the materials allowed an appropriate reasonable sum to be determined with a 30% discount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal Costs Application / Costs Determined on the Papers After Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Costs application allowed; oral hearing dispensed with; appellant ordered to pay the respondent lump sum costs.
Legal Topics
['rule 38 a Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'councillors']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'local Government'] ['rule 38 a Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014' 'special Circumstances for Costs' 'lump Sum Costs Order' 'councillors']

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

Internal Appeal Costs Application / Costs Determined on the Papers After Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an oral hearing on the issue of costs should be dispensed with.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted an award of costs to the respondent in the appeal.' 'Whether costs should be awarded as a lump sum and in what amount.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special circumstances warranted an award of costs because the appeal was lacking in substance, the appellant repeated untenable submissions made at first instance, advanced a new ground at the appeal hearing that the respondent had to address orally, and had been put on notice that the appeal was said to be misconceived and that costs would be sought. A lump sum order was appropriate because the costs claimed were modest, assessment would add disproportionate cost, and the materials allowed an appropriate reasonable sum to be determined with a 30% discount.

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed; oral hearing dispensed with; appellant ordered to pay the respondent lump sum costs.

Orders

  • ['An oral hearing on the issue of costs is dispensed with under s 50 (2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).' 'The appellant is to pay the respondent an amount of $2,991.45 on or before 27 August 2024.' 'The appellant is to pay the respondent an amount of $2,991.45 on or before 31 July 2024.']