Moore v Corowa Shire Council (No.2) [2009] NSWLEC 113

Moore v Corowa Shire Council (No.2) [2009] NSWLEC 113

The applicant was unsuccessful overall in private litigation, not public interest litigation, and no additional circumstances displaced the usual costs order. Council was entitled to put the applicant to proof of alleged statutory breaches, so its conduct was not disentitling, and the applicant's limited success on the s 120 issue did not justify a partial costs order. The applicant was therefore ordered to pay Council's costs on a party-party basis.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Following Dismissal of the Substantive Class 4 Application; Appeal Lodged But No Grounds of Appeal Filed
Outcome
The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis.
Legal Topics
['protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Ss 120 and 129' 'sewerage Treatment Plant Pollution and Odour Complaints' 'costs Follow the Event' 'calderbank Principles' 'public Interest Litigation' 'disentitling Conduct' 'partial Costs']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 Ss 120 and 129' 'sewerage Treatment Plant Pollution and Odour Complaints' 'costs Follow the Event' 'calderbank Principles' 'public Interest Litigation' 'disentitling Conduct' 'partial 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 4 Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Following Dismissal of the Substantive Class 4 Application; Appeal Lodged But No Grounds of Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the unsuccessful applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the class 4 proceedings." 'Whether the proceedings should be treated as public interest litigation so as to displace the usual costs order.' "Whether Council's denial of the s 120 issue amounted to disentitling conduct in relation to costs." 'Whether a partial costs order should be made because the applicant succeeded on the s 120 issue.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was unsuccessful overall in private litigation, not public interest litigation, and no additional circumstances displaced the usual costs order. Council was entitled to put the applicant to proof of alleged statutory breaches, so its conduct was not disentitling, and the applicant's limited success on the s 120 issue did not justify a partial costs order. The applicant was therefore ordered to pay Council's costs on a party-party basis.

Court Disposition

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings, including its costs on the Notice of Motion seeking an order for costs, on a party-party basis, as agreed or as assessed according to law."]