Gray v Minister for Planning & Ors (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 91

Gray v Minister for Planning & Ors (No 2) [2007] NSWLEC 91

The Applicant was sufficiently successful because he obtained a declaration on a significant matter, and failure to obtain consequential orders did not disentitle him to costs. Although he succeeded on only one of two overlapping arguments on the remaining ground, the issues were not so dominant or separable as to justify a 50 per cent apportionment. However, the late abandonment of four challenges must have caused some wasted costs, so costs associated with those abandoned challenges were excluded. Centennial, as a beneficiary of the challenged decision that chose to defend the proceedings, was to share equally in the costs liability with the Second Respondent, with liability joint and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Applicant against the Second and Third Respondents, excluding costs associated with the four abandoned challenges.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'partial Success' 'abandoned Grounds' 'joint and Several Costs Liability']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs Discretion' 'costs Follow the Event' 'partial Success' 'abandoned Grounds' 'joint and Several Costs Liability']

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 / Judgment on Costs After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant should receive all of his costs after obtaining a declaration but not consequential orders.' 'Whether costs should be reduced or excluded because four challenges in the Points of Claim were abandoned shortly before the hearing.' 'Whether any costs order should be apportioned between the Second and Third Respondents or made jointly and severally.' 'Whether costs of a third counsel should be excluded by order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was sufficiently successful because he obtained a declaration on a significant matter, and failure to obtain consequential orders did not disentitle him to costs. Although he succeeded on only one of two overlapping arguments on the remaining ground, the issues were not so dominant or separable as to justify a 50 per cent apportionment. However, the late abandonment of four challenges must have caused some wasted costs, so costs associated with those abandoned challenges were excluded. Centennial, as a beneficiary of the challenged decision that chose to defend the proceedings, was to share equally in the costs liability with the Second Respondent, with liability joint and...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Applicant against the Second and Third Respondents, excluding costs associated with the four abandoned challenges.

Orders

  • ['The Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicant\'s costs including the costs of the hearing on 22 February 2007 but for those associated with the "four challenges" contained in the Applicant\'s Points of Claim which were abandoned on 1 November 2006.']