Bentley & Ors v Drummoyne Counci l & Ors [No. 2] [1999] NSWLEC 103

Bentley & Ors v Drummoyne Counci l & Ors [No. 2] [1999] NSWLEC 103

The council, as first respondent, was almost entirely successful and entitled to costs from the applicants; the second and third respondents are to pay the costs of the applicants in the Class 4 proceedings. In the Class 2 appeal, the applicants are to pay the costs of the respondent council as exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the usual practice of no order for costs.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Michael Bentley; Applicant: Sandra Alexandra Bentley; Applicant: Stella Chen; Applicant: Stephen Chen; First Respondent: Drummoyne Council; Second Respondent: Calitry Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Bullbear Investments Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Petria Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Joe Di Giulio
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Related to Class 2 and Class 4 Environmental/planning Proceedings / Post Judgment; Costs Orders
Outcome
Costs apportioned according to parties' relative success/failure; specific orders made as follows
Legal Topics
Costs, Planning and Building Appeals, Discretion
Environmental Law Local Government Law Civil Procedure Costs Planning and Building Appeals Discretion

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Michael Bentley

Applicant

Sandra Alexandra Bentley

Applicant

Stella Chen

Applicant

Stephen Chen

Applicant

Drummoyne Council

First Respondent

Calitry Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Bullbear Investments Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Petria Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Joe Di Giulio

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Related to Class 2 and Class 4 Environmental/planning Proceedings / Post Judgment; Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be apportioned when applicants not wholly successful
  2. 2 Appropriate orders for costs where one respondent is successful and others fail
  3. 3 Application of ordinary rule that costs follow the event in planning/development matters

Ratio Decidendi

The council, as first respondent, was almost entirely successful and entitled to costs from the applicants; the second and third respondents are to pay the costs of the applicants in the Class 4 proceedings. In the Class 2 appeal, the applicants are to pay the costs of the respondent council as exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the usual practice of no order for costs.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned according to parties' relative success/failure; specific orders made as follows

Orders

  • In Matter No. 40249 of 1998: The applicants are to pay the costs of the first respondent (Drummoyne Council).
  • In Matter No. 40249 of 1998: The second and third respondents are to pay the costs of the applicants.