Marrickville Council v Admark Investments Pty Limited and Another (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 82

Marrickville Council v Admark Investments Pty Limited and Another (No 2) [2002] NSWLEC 82

The first respondent was found to have a distinct responsibility for complying with the conditions of development consent, and the council was justified in proceeding against both respondents. There is no basis for indemnity of the first respondent by the second respondent regarding the applicant's costs. Apportionment of responsibility is not joint in all respects due to distinct occupation and liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance
Outcome
First respondent's notice of motion for indemnity dismissed; second respondent entitled to costs subject to further motion.
Legal Topics
['costs Orders' 'indemnity Between Respondents' 'development Consent Conditions']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Orders' 'indemnity Between Respondents' 'development Consent Conditions']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent should indemnify the first respondent against a previous costs order' 'Responsibility for breaches of development consent conditions' 'Appropriateness of apportionment of costs between respondents']

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent was found to have a distinct responsibility for complying with the conditions of development consent, and the council was justified in proceeding against both respondents. There is no basis for indemnity of the first respondent by the second respondent regarding the applicant's costs. Apportionment of responsibility is not joint in all respects due to distinct occupation and liability.

Court Disposition

First respondent's notice of motion for indemnity dismissed; second respondent entitled to costs subject to further motion.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion dated 6 November 2001 dismissed.' 'First respondent to pay the costs of second respondent on the notice of motion unless application to the contrary is filed within seven days.' 'Exhibits may be returned.']