Sylvester & Ors v Cessnock City Council & Ors [2003] NSWLEC 5

Sylvester & Ors v Cessnock City Council & Ors [2003] NSWLEC 5

Neither party acted unreasonably in instituting or defending the proceedings, and the grant of consent regularising the use did not justify an order for costs; thus, in accordance with Lai Qin, no order as to costs should be made.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Joseph Sylvester; Applicant: Lyn Fay Sylvester; Applicant: Kevin John Goodwin; Applicant: Jean Anne Goodwin; Applicant: Jodie Robb; Applicant: Jeffrey Paul Burke; Applicant: Anthea Therese Burke; First Respondent: Cessnock City Council; Second Respondent: ACM Landmark Pty Limited; Third Respondent: St Patricks of Nulkaba Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (costs in Class 4 Proceedings) / Post Discontinuance, Application for Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs. Both the applicants’ and respondents’ notices of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Costs, Development Consent, Unlawful Use of Land
Planning and Development Law Costs Development Consent Unlawful Use of Land

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Joseph Sylvester

Applicant

Lyn Fay Sylvester

Applicant

Kevin John Goodwin

Applicant

Jean Anne Goodwin

Applicant

Jodie Robb

Applicant

Jeffrey Paul Burke

Applicant

Anthea Therese Burke

Applicant

Cessnock City Council

First Respondent

ACM Landmark Pty Limited

Second Respondent

St Patricks of Nulkaba Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (costs in Class 4 Proceedings) / Post Discontinuance, Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are entitled to costs following the grant of development consent regularising the use in dispute
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of either party was unreasonable so as to justify a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party acted unreasonably in instituting or defending the proceedings, and the grant of consent regularising the use did not justify an order for costs; thus, in accordance with Lai Qin, no order as to costs should be made.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs. Both the applicants’ and respondents’ notices of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's Notice of Motion seeking an order that the second and third respondents pay the applicants' costs in respect of prayers 2 and 3 of the Amended Application be dismissed.
  • The Notice of Motion relating to the exclusion of evidence be dismissed.