Hansell & Ors v Local Land Board & Ors [2000] NSWSC 341
The Local Land Board, in exercising its discretion as to costs, was entitled to be guided by a policy or guideline promoting consistency, provided it did not treat the guideline as binding or fetter its discretion. No error of law was demonstrated in its approach or decision; the plaintiffs did not establish that the Board’s costs order was made in error of law or in disregard of relevant considerations.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Local Land Board Decision on Costs
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['appeal on Costs' 'dividing Fence Disputes' 'exercise of Costs Discretion' 'application of Guidelines in Tribunals']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Local Land Board Decision on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Local Land Board erred in law in refusing to award costs to the plaintiffs' 'Whether the Board improperly fettered its discretion by applying a guideline as to costs' 'Whether the Board had due regard to all relevant circumstances in making its costs order']
Ratio Decidendi
The Local Land Board, in exercising its discretion as to costs, was entitled to be guided by a policy or guideline promoting consistency, provided it did not treat the guideline as binding or fetter its discretion. No error of law was demonstrated in its approach or decision; the plaintiffs did not establish that the Board’s costs order was made in error of law or in disregard of relevant considerations.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Summons dismissed' 'Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the Summons' 'Exhibit may be returned']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment