Carey v Pattinson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 177

Carey v Pattinson (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 177

The Court found that the applicants did not act unreasonably in commencing or conducting the proceedings, as their actions were based on expert advice, and attempts were made to reach agreement with the respondents. There was no improper purpose, and the dismissal of their claim does not warrant a costs order against them. The presumptive rule that each party pays their own costs remains undisturbed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Tree Dispute (class 2, Costs Application) / Costs Application After Substantive Dismissal
Outcome
Notice of motion for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'costs in Land and Environment Court Class 2' 'reasonableness of Party Conduct' 'expert Evidence' 'settlement Offers and Attempts']
['costs' 'environmental Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['tree Disputes Between Neighbours' 'costs in Land and Environment Court Class 2' 'reasonableness of Party Conduct' 'expert Evidence' 'settlement Offers and Attempts']

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

Tree Dispute (class 2, Costs Application) / Costs Application After Substantive Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is fair and reasonable to order the unsuccessful applicants to pay costs' 'Whether the applicants acted unreasonably in not excavating to determine the cause of damage' 'Whether the applicants acted unreasonably in relying on expert evidence blaming the tree' 'Whether the applicants acted reasonably in attempting to reach agreement with the respondents' 'Whether commencement and conduct of proceedings was unreasonable']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants did not act unreasonably in commencing or conducting the proceedings, as their actions were based on expert advice, and attempts were made to reach agreement with the respondents. There was no improper purpose, and the dismissal of their claim does not warrant a costs order against them. The presumptive rule that each party pays their own costs remains undisturbed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion seeking costs is dismissed.' 'Exhibits to be returned.']