Mid-Coast Council v Gazecki (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 103

Mid-Coast Council v Gazecki (No 2) [2024] NSWLEC 103

The Council was the successful party in the interlocutory application concerning the undertaking, no disentitling conduct by the Council was established, the interlocutory costs issue was sufficiently discrete to justify an immediate order, but no order for costs payable forthwith was warranted given the Respondents' self-represented status and the case complexity; costs are properly awarded against both respondents.

Parties
Applicant: Mid-Coast Council; First Respondent: John Gazecki; Second Respondent: Natalie Decorte
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Civil Enforcement / Costs Order in Interlocutory Proceedings Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Costs order in favour of applicant; costs not payable forthwith
Legal Topics
Costs, Enforcement Proceedings, Undertakings, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Costs Enforcement Proceedings Undertakings Interlocutory Applications

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mid-Coast Council

Applicant

John Gazecki

First Respondent

Natalie Decorte

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Civil Enforcement / Costs Order in Interlocutory Proceedings Following Dismissal of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant council following unsuccessful interlocutory application by respondents to change terms of undertaking;
  2. 2 Whether disentitling conduct by the applicant council should prevent an order for costs;
  3. 3 Whether costs should be payable forthwith or at the conclusion of proceedings;

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was the successful party in the interlocutory application concerning the undertaking, no disentitling conduct by the Council was established, the interlocutory costs issue was sufficiently discrete to justify an immediate order, but no order for costs payable forthwith was warranted given the Respondents' self-represented status and the case complexity; costs are properly awarded against both respondents.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of applicant; costs not payable forthwith

Orders

  • The Respondents are to pay the Council's costs of the notice of motion filed 3 August 2024 as amended by the notice of motion filed 16 August 2024.