Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Sell and Parker Pty Limited and Another [2003] NSWLEC 21

Meriton Apartments Pty Limited v Sell and Parker Pty Limited and Another [2003] NSWLEC 21

Because the respondents' acoustic evidence was served only shortly before the interlocutory hearing, the applicant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to consider and reply to it; the strength of the competing expert evidence and the substantive issues would be resolved at the final hearing, so the appropriate order was that costs of the interlocutory proceedings be costs in the cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application / Determination of Competing Costs Applications After Applicant Did Not Press Interlocutory Relief and Directions Were Made for Final Hearing
Outcome
Costs of the interlocutory proceedings ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'costs in the Cause' 'development Consent Conditions' 'noise and Vibration From Scrap Metal Yard' 'offensive Noise']
['environmental Law' 'planning and Development' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'costs in the Cause' 'development Consent Conditions' 'noise and Vibration From Scrap Metal Yard' 'offensive Noise']

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 / Determination of Competing Costs Applications After Applicant Did Not Press Interlocutory Relief and Directions Were Made for Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant or the respondents should pay costs in respect of the applications for interlocutory relief.' 'Whether costs of the interlocutory proceedings should instead follow the outcome of the final hearing after the applicant did not press interlocutory relief because of late-served expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents' acoustic evidence was served only shortly before the interlocutory hearing, the applicant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to consider and reply to it; the strength of the competing expert evidence and the substantive issues would be resolved at the final hearing, so the appropriate order was that costs of the interlocutory proceedings be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the interlocutory proceedings ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The costs of the interlocutory proceedings be costs in the cause.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']