Sharp v Swadling [2004] NSWLEC 241

Sharp v Swadling [2004] NSWLEC 241

Because the respondents removed the encroachments about three weeks before the hearing after filing a defence and cross-claim and after the parties had prepared for hearing, their conduct was unreasonable in the context of the litigation and rendered the proceedings nugatory. The applicant was therefore entitled to her costs under the Court's costs discretion, but the respondents' conduct did not justify indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Class 3 Proceedings Under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 Seeking an Easement Over Land, With a Cross Claim for Removal of Encroachments / Costs Determination After Removal of the Encroachments and No Final Determination of the Merits
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings; indemnity costs and the Respondents' requested costs orders for adjournments were not made.
Legal Topics
['encroachment of Buildings' 'easement Over Land' 'costs Discretion' "reasonableness of Parties' Conduct" 'indemnity Costs']
['costs' 'property Law' 'land and Environment Court Proceedings'] ['encroachment of Buildings' 'easement Over Land' 'costs Discretion' "reasonableness of Parties' Conduct" 'indemnity 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

Class 3 Proceedings Under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 Seeking an Easement Over Land, With a Cross Claim for Removal of Encroachments / Costs Determination After Removal of the Encroachments and No Final Determination of the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs should be awarded where proceedings under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 became nugatory after the respondents removed the encroachments before hearing' 'Whether s 14 of the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922 applied where no merits orders had been made' 'Whether the parties acted reasonably in commencing or defending the proceedings and in removing the encroachments' 'Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis' 'Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant in relation to adjournments after removal of the encroachment']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents removed the encroachments about three weeks before the hearing after filing a defence and cross-claim and after the parties had prepared for hearing, their conduct was unreasonable in the context of the litigation and rendered the proceedings nugatory. The applicant was therefore entitled to her costs under the Court's costs discretion, but the respondents' conduct did not justify indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the proceedings; indemnity costs and the Respondents' requested costs orders for adjournments were not made.

Orders

  • ["The Respondents must pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings." 'The exhibits be returned.']