Prestige Building Services v Coffs Harbour City Council and ors [2005] NSWLEC 707

Prestige Building Services v Coffs Harbour City Council and ors [2005] NSWLEC 707

It was not fair and reasonable to order the Applicant to pay the First Respondent's general costs of the Class 1 appeal because the Park Beach Development Control Plan contemplated departures from numerical controls and contained ambiguity between objectives and numerical standards, making the six-storey proposal reasonably arguable. It was fair and reasonable for the Applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs of assessment and legal work associated with the amended plans because the amended plans caused further expense while not addressing the determinative height issue already assessed by Mr O'Connor. Each party should bear its own costs of the 6 December 2004 Notice of Motion...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Costs Application / After Appeal Dismissed on 10 August 2005 With Costs Reserved; Findings on Costs Subject to Concurrence of the Chief Judge
Outcome
Costs orders proposed subject to concurrence of the Chief Judge.
Legal Topics
['class 1 Proceedings' 'development Application Appeal' 'development Control Plan' 'amended Plans' 'notices of Motion']
['planning and Environment' 'costs'] ['class 1 Proceedings' 'development Application Appeal' 'development Control Plan' 'amended Plans' 'notices of Motion']

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 1 Appeal Costs Application / After Appeal Dismissed on 10 August 2005 With Costs Reserved; Findings on Costs Subject to Concurrence of the Chief Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the Applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs of the Class 1 appeal." 'Whether the Applicant should pay costs associated with amended plans served on 8 December 2004.' 'Whether any costs order should be made for the Notice of Motion of 6 December 2004 concerning advertising requirements under cl 51(4) of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan.' "Whether the First Respondent should pay the Applicant's costs for the Notice of Motion of 27 April 2005 concerning amendment of the appeal to be against a deemed refusal."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair and reasonable to order the Applicant to pay the First Respondent's general costs of the Class 1 appeal because the Park Beach Development Control Plan contemplated departures from numerical controls and contained ambiguity between objectives and numerical standards, making the six-storey proposal reasonably arguable. It was fair and reasonable for the Applicant to pay the First Respondent's costs of assessment and legal work associated with the amended plans because the amended plans caused further expense while not addressing the determinative height issue already assessed by Mr O'Connor. Each party should bear its own costs of the 6 December 2004 Notice of Motion...

Court Disposition

Costs orders proposed subject to concurrence of the Chief Judge.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs for the amended plans served on 8 December 2004. The costs are those incurred by the First Respondent for Mr O'Connor's assessment and further report on the amended plans and any associated legal costs, but not administration costs." 'Each party pay its own costs for...