Nedoni Pty Limited v NSW Minister for Roads and Anor. [2004] NSWLEC 682

Nedoni Pty Limited v NSW Minister for Roads and Anor. [2004] NSWLEC 682

The applicant is entitled to its costs of the proceedings from the second respondent, as it was successful in obtaining relief. No costs order should be made in favour of the first respondent, who, though no relief was granted against him, was not ultimately successful in defending the proceeding. The first respondent must pay the applicant’s costs for the hearing on costs, having failed in his application. No Bullock order arises because circumstances did not justify it.

Parties
Applicant: Nedoni Pty Ltd; First Respondent: NSW Minister for Roads; Second Respondent: Anor.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of applicant; orders as to costs against both respondents.
Legal Topics
Costs, Statutory Interpretation, Public Duty Acquisition of Land
Administrative Law Land Law Costs Statutory Interpretation Public Duty Acquisition 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedoni Pty Ltd

Applicant

NSW Minister for Roads

First Respondent

Anor.

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Post Judgment, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant should be granted costs against both respondents in class 4 proceedings where relief was granted only against the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should pay the costs of the first respondent and whether a 'Bullock' order is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is entitled to its costs of the proceedings from the second respondent, as it was successful in obtaining relief. No costs order should be made in favour of the first respondent, who, though no relief was granted against him, was not ultimately successful in defending the proceeding. The first respondent must pay the applicant’s costs for the hearing on costs, having failed in his application. No Bullock order arises because circumstances did not justify it.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of applicant; orders as to costs against both respondents.

Orders

  • The second respondent is to pay the applicant's costs in the substantive proceedings in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.
  • The first respondent is to pay the applicant's costs in respect of the disputed question of costs in the sum agreed, or failing agreement, as assessed.