Parkroad Projects Pty Ltd v Luckey & Anor [1999] NSWSC 241

Parkroad Projects Pty Ltd v Luckey & Anor [1999] NSWSC 241

Although the Court had discretion to award costs in favour of the Minister as intervener, the discretion should be exercised by making no order for costs between the plaintiff and the intervener because the litigation was private litigation between private litigants, the intervention was imposed as of right rather than invited, and the intervener's submissions overlapped with submissions made by the parties, including support for the first defendant's position on the result and support for the plaintiff on the jurisdictional point.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal / Judgment on the Intervener's Application for Costs After the Appeal Was Dismissed
Outcome
No order was made as to costs in the dispute between the plaintiff and the intervener.
Legal Topics
['costs of an Intervener' 'ministerial Intervention Under the Fair Trading Act' 'discretion as to Costs' 'costs Following the Event']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs of an Intervener' 'ministerial Intervention Under the Fair Trading Act' 'discretion as to Costs' 'costs Following the Event']

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

Administrative Law Appeal / Judgment on the Intervener's Application for Costs After the Appeal Was Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the plaintiff appellant to pay the Minister for Fair Trading's costs as intervener." 'How the discretion as to costs under s 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) and Part 52 should be exercised where the Minister intervened as of right under s 86 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court had discretion to award costs in favour of the Minister as intervener, the discretion should be exercised by making no order for costs between the plaintiff and the intervener because the litigation was private litigation between private litigants, the intervention was imposed as of right rather than invited, and the intervener's submissions overlapped with submissions made by the parties, including support for the first defendant's position on the result and support for the plaintiff on the jurisdictional point.

Court Disposition

No order was made as to costs in the dispute between the plaintiff and the intervener.

Orders

  • ['Make no order as to costs in the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Intevenor.' "The Court declined to order that the plaintiff pay the intervener's costs."]