Salmon v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation of New South Wales [No. 2] [2002] NSWLEC 133

Salmon v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation of New South Wales [No. 2] [2002] NSWLEC 133

The appellant was the successful party on the substantive appeal because he obtained renewal of his water licence. His failed s 10 claim did not disentitle him to costs because the first respondent had invited him to make the s 10 application, relatively little additional hearing time was devoted solely to that claim, and the factual evidence was common to the claims. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting apportionment, and the first respondent had participated in and opposed the appeal despite previous Local Land Board views favouring the appellant. The appellant remained substantially successful notwithstanding that he obtained a two-year rather than ten-year renewal and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Appeal Against Refusal of Water Licence / Costs Application After Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Costs application allowed.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'usual Order as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'water Licence Renewal' 'water Act 1912 S 10 Application' 'water Act 1912 S 13 a Renewal']
['costs' 'water Law' 'administrative Law'] ['costs Discretion' 'usual Order as to Costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'water Licence Renewal' 'water Act 1912 S 10 Application' 'water Act 1912 S 13 a Renewal']

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 3 Appeal Against Refusal of Water Licence / Costs Application After Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful appellant should receive an order for costs against the respondents.' 'Whether costs should be apportioned because the appellant failed on the limb concerning an application under s 10 of the Water Act 1912.' "Whether the appellant's pursuit of the s 10 claim or related claims disentitled him to costs." "Whether the respondents' submissions concerning their position, the licence term, and compensation justified refusing or reducing costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was the successful party on the substantive appeal because he obtained renewal of his water licence. His failed s 10 claim did not disentitle him to costs because the first respondent had invited him to make the s 10 application, relatively little additional hearing time was devoted solely to that claim, and the factual evidence was common to the claims. There were no exceptional circumstances warranting apportionment, and the first respondent had participated in and opposed the appeal despite previous Local Land Board views favouring the appellant. The appellant remained substantially successful notwithstanding that he obtained a two-year rather than ten-year renewal and...

Court Disposition

Costs application allowed.

Orders

  • ["The respondents pay the appellant's costs."]