Multistar Pty Ltd v The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning & Anor [No. 3] [2001] NSWLEC 101

Multistar Pty Ltd v The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning & Anor [No. 3] [2001] NSWLEC 101

The applicant must pay the costs of both respondents, as the respondents were wholly successful and no good reason was shown to depart from the general rule; the court lacks jurisdiction to alter its judgment after perfection and refused to amend the judgment as sought by the council.

Parties
Applicant: Multistar Pty Ltd; First Respondent: The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning; Second Respondent: Sydney City Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs and Amendment Application
Outcome
application dismissed, costs awarded to respondents, application to amend judgment refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Estoppel, Amendment of Judgment, Procedural Fairness, Local Environmental Plans
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Costs Estoppel Amendment of Judgment Procedural Fairness Local Environmental Plans

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multistar Pty Ltd

Applicant

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning

First Respondent

Sydney City Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 apportionment of costs between parties
  2. 2 whether estoppel should have been pleaded earlier
  3. 3 whether amendment of published reasons is permissible after perfection

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant must pay the costs of both respondents, as the respondents were wholly successful and no good reason was shown to depart from the general rule; the court lacks jurisdiction to alter its judgment after perfection and refused to amend the judgment as sought by the council.

Court Disposition

application dismissed, costs awarded to respondents, application to amend judgment refused

Orders

  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, including the costs of the hearing of 16 March 2001.
  • The applicant must pay the second respondent's costs, excluding the costs related to the hearing of 16 March 2001.