Marrickville Council v Admark Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] NSWLEC 233

Marrickville Council v Admark Investments Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] NSWLEC 233

Both owner and lessee were arguably responsible (in respect of different parts of the land) for compliance with consent conditions. The council was justified in proceeding against both. Apportionment of costs is appropriate as responsibility is severable, not joint, and an equal order is the fairest outcome on the facts before the Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application / Costs Determination After Discontinuance
Outcome
Costs apportioned equally between respondents; first respondent’s costs notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'owner and Lessee Liability' 'development Consent Breaches' 'apportionment of Costs']
['planning Law' 'land Law'] ['costs' 'owner and Lessee Liability' 'development Consent Breaches' 'apportionment of 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 Application / Costs Determination After Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether owner and/or lessee are liable for breaches of development consent conditions' 'Whether costs should be apportioned between owner and lessee after proceedings discontinued']

Ratio Decidendi

Both owner and lessee were arguably responsible (in respect of different parts of the land) for compliance with consent conditions. The council was justified in proceeding against both. Apportionment of costs is appropriate as responsibility is severable, not joint, and an equal order is the fairest outcome on the facts before the Court.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned equally between respondents; first respondent’s costs notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent is ordered to pay one half of the applicant's costs including the notices of motion." "The second respondent is ordered to pay one half of the applicant's costs including the notices of motion." "The first respondent's notice of motion dated 18 September 2001 is dismissed." 'The exhibits may...