Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 5) [2020] NSWLEC 101

Ryan v Northern Regional Planning Panel (No 5) [2020] NSWLEC 101

Although the Applicant was successful overall in obtaining invalidation of the development consent on the SIS ground, the proceedings involved an inordinately large number of interlocutory applications, including unsuccessful injunction applications, and repeated amendments and abandonment of numerous grounds. Those circumstances justified departing from the ordinary operation of UCPR rr 42.1 and 42.7. A broad percentage order best reflected the mixed position and minimised further costs disputes, so Winten should be liable for 60 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Costs Determination After Ryan V Northern Regional Planning Panel (no 4) [2020] NSWLEC 55
Outcome
The Court determined that Winten should be liable for 60 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'reserved Costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'species Impact Statement' 'development Consent']
['costs' 'planning and Environment' 'judicial Review' 'civil Enforcement'] ['costs Following the Event' 'reserved Costs of Interlocutory Applications' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'costs Thrown Away by Amendments' 'species Impact Statement' 'development Consent']

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 Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement Proceedings / Costs Determination After Ryan V Northern Regional Planning Panel (no 4) [2020] NSWLEC 55

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Third Respondent should pay all of the Applicant's costs after the Applicant succeeded on one of three substantive grounds." 'Whether otherwise orders should be made for reserved costs of unsuccessful interlocutory injunction applications.' 'Whether the Applicant should pay costs thrown away by amendments to the summons and abandonment of grounds.' 'Whether a percentage costs order was preferable to separate offsetting costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Applicant was successful overall in obtaining invalidation of the development consent on the SIS ground, the proceedings involved an inordinately large number of interlocutory applications, including unsuccessful injunction applications, and repeated amendments and abandonment of numerous grounds. Those circumstances justified departing from the ordinary operation of UCPR rr 42.1 and 42.7. A broad percentage order best reflected the mixed position and minimised further costs disputes, so Winten should be liable for 60 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

The Court determined that Winten should be liable for 60 per cent of the Applicant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ["Winten should be liable for 60 per cent of the Applicant's costs of these proceedings." 'The form of order to give effect to that liability was to be discussed with the parties.']