Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council [2007] NSWLEC 71

Marinkovic v Rockdale City Council [2007] NSWLEC 71

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments corresponded with matters identified by Commissioner Tuor, lessened environmental impact, produced a better community outcome, and responded to evidence including the court appointed expert's evidence. A costs order against the applicant was not fair and reasonable because, after 19 September 2006, the applicant had complied with directions, prepared the case properly, proposed a development that was not unreasonable or an ambit claim, and the amendments were part of the usual conduct of a Class 1 appeal in response to the Court's concerns. The applicant was not awarded costs of resisting the Council's motions because it needed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Application / Applicant's Motion for Leave to Amend Plans and Council's Motions for Costs
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; each party to pay their own costs of the applicant's motion and the Council's motions; further directions made for preparation of the resumed hearing.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Development Application Plans' 'class 1 Appeal' 'existing Use Rights' 'costs Discretion' 'court Appointed Expert Evidence']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['amendment of Development Application Plans' 'class 1 Appeal' 'existing Use Rights' 'costs Discretion' 'court Appointed Expert Evidence']

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 1 Appeal Concerning a Development Application / Applicant's Motion for Leave to Amend Plans and Council's Motions for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the applicant to amend the Class 1 application to rely on further amended plans.' "Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the Council's costs occasioned by the amended plans." "Whether the applicant should receive costs of resisting the Council's motions for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments corresponded with matters identified by Commissioner Tuor, lessened environmental impact, produced a better community outcome, and responded to evidence including the court appointed expert's evidence. A costs order against the applicant was not fair and reasonable because, after 19 September 2006, the applicant had complied with directions, prepared the case properly, proposed a development that was not unreasonable or an ambit claim, and the amendments were part of the usual conduct of a Class 1 appeal in response to the Court's concerns. The applicant was not awarded costs of resisting the Council's motions because it needed...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; each party to pay their own costs of the applicant's motion and the Council's motions; further directions made for preparation of the resumed hearing.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to the Applicant to amend the Class 1 Application to rely on amended plans DA 01 – Issue G dated 7 December 2006, DA 02 – Issue G dated 7 December 2006, DA 03 – Issue G dated 7 December 2006, SD 01 – Issue G dated 7 December 2006, SD 02 – Issue G dated 7 December 2006, SD 03 – Issue G dated 7...