Gorczynski v Perera & Dee & Ors [Costs] [2003] NSWLEC 8

Gorczynski v Perera & Dee & Ors [Costs] [2003] NSWLEC 8

The court applied principles of costs discretion, holding that where proceedings did not reach a final hearing and both parties acted reasonably, the usual course is no order as to costs. Where the applicant obtained effective relief (as against first respondents re: demolition and reference), costs should follow the event. Where applicant was unsuccessful (against council in 40120/00), the council should receive its costs. Discretion was exercised having regard to the conduct of each party and success in each proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination (related to Multiple Proceedings: Class 3 and Class 4 Applications) / Post Hearing – Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made in accordance with success and conduct in each proceeding; no general order for costs for all proceedings.
Legal Topics
['costs' 'development Consent' 'building Certificates' 'natural Justice' 'encroachment' 'judicial Discretion on Costs']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'local Government Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs' 'development Consent' 'building Certificates' 'natural Justice' 'encroachment' 'judicial Discretion on Costs']

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

Costs Determination (related to Multiple Proceedings: Class 3 and Class 4 Applications) / Post Hearing – Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded in proceedings 40012/00, 30079/00, and 40120/00; and between which parties.' 'Whether applicant or respondents acted unreasonably so as to justify a costs order.' 'The extent to which success or failure in substantive proceedings affects entitlement to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied principles of costs discretion, holding that where proceedings did not reach a final hearing and both parties acted reasonably, the usual course is no order as to costs. Where the applicant obtained effective relief (as against first respondents re: demolition and reference), costs should follow the event. Where applicant was unsuccessful (against council in 40120/00), the council should receive its costs. Discretion was exercised having regard to the conduct of each party and success in each proceeding.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in accordance with success and conduct in each proceeding; no general order for costs for all proceedings.

Orders

  • ['No order for costs between applicant and Leichhardt Council in 40012/00.' 'First respondents to pay applicant’s costs including costs of the appointment of the referee in 40012/00.' 'No order as to costs in proceedings 30079/00 (each party to bear its own).' "Applicant to pay Leichhardt Council's costs in...