Parramatta Business Freedom Association Inc v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 176

Parramatta Business Freedom Association Inc v Parramatta City Council (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 176

A reduction of 25% in the costs awarded to the applicants is justified as they failed on a majority of discrete grounds, did not plead their successful ground until late, and incurred costs relating to issues on which they did not succeed. Public interest arguments did not override apportionment principles in these circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination After Judgment
Outcome
Respondent to pay 75% of applicants' costs in both proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'judicial Review']
['civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'apportionment of Costs' 'judicial Review']

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

Judicial Review (class 4) / Costs Determination After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there should be departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event in Class 4 proceedings by way of apportionment of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

A reduction of 25% in the costs awarded to the applicants is justified as they failed on a majority of discrete grounds, did not plead their successful ground until late, and incurred costs relating to issues on which they did not succeed. Public interest arguments did not override apportionment principles in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Respondent to pay 75% of applicants' costs in both proceedings.

Orders

  • ["The respondent is to pay 75 per cent of the applicants' costs in both proceedings." 'The exhibit may be returned.']