Michael Barclay v Mosman Council (No 2) [2005] NSWLEC 291

Michael Barclay v Mosman Council (No 2) [2005] NSWLEC 291

It was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because the applicant had been on notice that landscaping was the primary issue, resisted bringing the proposal into closer compliance, sought a belated adjournment during the on-site hearing to file amended landscape plans, and thereby caused the council to incur further assessment and legal costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Development Appeal Proceedings / After Conditional Consent Was Granted; Provisional Costs Orders Subject to Submissions Within 14 Days
Outcome
Provisional costs orders made in favour of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['costs in Land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Amended Development Plans' 'landscaped Area Requirements for Residential Development']
['planning and Environment' 'costs'] ['costs in Land and Environment Court Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Amended Development Plans' 'landscaped Area Requirements for Residential Development']

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

Costs Application in Development Appeal Proceedings / After Conditional Consent Was Granted; Provisional Costs Orders Subject to Submissions Within 14 Days

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable under s 69(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 and Part 16 rule 4(2) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs." "Whether the applicant's belated amendment of landscape plans and resulting adjournment caused the respondent to incur additional costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs because the applicant had been on notice that landscaping was the primary issue, resisted bringing the proposal into closer compliance, sought a belated adjournment during the on-site hearing to file amended landscape plans, and thereby caused the council to incur further assessment and legal costs.

Court Disposition

Provisional costs orders made in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ["Subject to any submission the parties make within 14 days of this judgment the Court with the concurrence of the Chief Judge orders that the applicant pays the respondent's costs in the proceedings in the sum of $8,063.59." 'The exhibits are retained for one month then returned.']