New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Hoddinott and Anor [1999] NSWLEC 225

New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Hoddinott and Anor [1999] NSWLEC 225

The respondents were successful in the interlocutory proceedings viewed as a whole and were entitled to party and party costs under the usual rule that costs follow the event. The first respondent was not entitled to indemnity costs because the matters relied on did not establish relevant delinquency by NSWALC. The Court had no power under s 69(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, and no need to invoke inherent power, to order NSWALC to pay costs from a nominated source; in any event the evidence showed only a possibility that Darkinjung LALC's budget allocation would be reduced, so such an order would be premature.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Application After Interlocutory Injunction Discharged and Proceedings Discontinued
Outcome
NSWALC ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and orders nominating the source of payment were refused.
Legal Topics
['costs of Interlocutory Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event' 'discontinuance' 'indemnity Costs' 'whether Court May Nominate Source From Which Costs Are to Be Paid']
['costs' 'aboriginal Land Rights' 'land and Environment Court Procedure'] ['costs of Interlocutory Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event' 'discontinuance' 'indemnity Costs' 'whether Court May Nominate Source From Which Costs Are to Be Paid']

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 Proceedings; Costs Application / Costs Application After Interlocutory Injunction Discharged and Proceedings Discontinued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether no order as to costs should be made because there had been no hearing on the substantive merits.' 'Whether the respondents were entitled to costs of the interlocutory proceedings and discontinued proceedings.' "Whether the first respondent's costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis." 'Whether the Court could order NSWALC to pay costs out of its own funds and not from funds affecting the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were successful in the interlocutory proceedings viewed as a whole and were entitled to party and party costs under the usual rule that costs follow the event. The first respondent was not entitled to indemnity costs because the matters relied on did not establish relevant delinquency by NSWALC. The Court had no power under s 69(2) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, and no need to invoke inherent power, to order NSWALC to pay costs from a nominated source; in any event the evidence showed only a possibility that Darkinjung LALC's budget allocation would be reduced, so such an order would be premature.

Court Disposition

NSWALC ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs on a party and party basis; indemnity costs and orders nominating the source of payment were refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant shall pay the costs of the first respondent and the second respondent of these proceedings (including the costs of the respondents' respective applications for costs) on a party and party basis, as agreed, or as assessed." 'The exhibits may be returned.']