Sale v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 464

Sale v Ku-ring-gai Council [2005] NSWLEC 464

It would not be fair or reasonable in the circumstances to depart from the usual principle that there will be no order as to costs in class 1 proceedings. The actions of the council, including seeking further information and serving issues late, were not unreasonable given the history and complexity of the applications. Similarly, the applicant's choice to proceed under s 96 rather than s 96AA was not improper and did not justify awarding costs either way.

Parties
Applicant: Phillip Sale; Respondent: Ku-ring-gai Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Costs Applications / Decision on Costs Applications After Judgment on Appeal and Modification Applications
Outcome
Applications for costs in relation to the appeals under s 97 and s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are dismissed.
Legal Topics
Development Applications, Costs in Class 1 Proceedings, Amendment of Development Consent
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Applications Costs in Class 1 Proceedings Amendment of Development Consent

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Sale

Applicant

Ku-ring-gai Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Costs Applications / Decision on Costs Applications After Judgment on Appeal and Modification Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant for the s 97 appeal against deemed refusal of development application
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to either party for the s 96 application to amend development consent

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be fair or reasonable in the circumstances to depart from the usual principle that there will be no order as to costs in class 1 proceedings. The actions of the council, including seeking further information and serving issues late, were not unreasonable given the history and complexity of the applications. Similarly, the applicant's choice to proceed under s 96 rather than s 96AA was not improper and did not justify awarding costs either way.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs in relation to the appeals under s 97 and s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are dismissed.

Orders

  • The applications for costs in relation to the appeals under s 97 and s 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are dismissed.