Penrith City Council v Dincel Construction System Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 58

Penrith City Council v Dincel Construction System Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] NSWLEC 58

As neither party's conduct was found to be unreasonable nor sufficient to assign blame for the mistake which necessitated re-opening the case, the appropriate order is for costs to be in the cause.

Parties
Applicant: Penrith City Council; First Respondent: Dincel Construction System Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Gaonor Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Notice of Motion to Re Open; Costs Order
Outcome
Costs of the notice of motion are costs in the cause. Orders made 24 April 2020 confirmed.
Legal Topics
Party/party Costs, Interlocutory Proceedings, Notice of Motion, Leave to Re Open Case
Costs Party/party Costs Interlocutory Proceedings Notice of Motion Leave to Re Open Case

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penrith City Council

Applicant

Dincel Construction System Pty Limited

First Respondent

Gaonor Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 / Interlocutory Application for Costs Following Notice of Motion to Re Open; Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following interlocutory application to re-open case

Ratio Decidendi

As neither party's conduct was found to be unreasonable nor sufficient to assign blame for the mistake which necessitated re-opening the case, the appropriate order is for costs to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Costs of the notice of motion are costs in the cause. Orders made 24 April 2020 confirmed.

Orders

  • The orders made on 24 April 2020 are confirmed.
  • Costs of the notice of motion filed 6 April 2020 are costs in the cause.