SDA Australia Pty Ltd v Ashfield Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 123

SDA Australia Pty Ltd v Ashfield Municipal Council [2009] NSWLEC 123

The amended plans generated by the applicant caused the adjournment from 14 November 2008 and further steps necessary for the proceedings to continue, making it fair and reasonable in Class 1 proceedings for the applicant to pay the respondent's costs arising after that date. However, the Court lacked sufficient familiarity with the issues, expert reports and additional costs incurred to fix a specified gross sum, so the costs were to be agreed or assessed rather than set as a gross amount.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Respondent's Application for Costs
Outcome
Respondent awarded costs from 14 November 2008 and costs of the notice of motion, as agreed or assessed; applicant's request for a specified gross sum was not accepted.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Amended Development Application Plans' 'specified Gross Sum Instead of Assessed Costs' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order']
['costs' 'civil Procedure' 'planning and Environment'] ['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'adjournment Caused by Amended Development Application Plans' 'specified Gross Sum Instead of Assessed Costs' 'fair and Reasonable Costs Order']

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 Proceedings in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Respondent's Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs occasioned by amended plans in Class 1 proceedings." 'Whether the Court should order a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs under s 98(4) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion for costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended plans generated by the applicant caused the adjournment from 14 November 2008 and further steps necessary for the proceedings to continue, making it fair and reasonable in Class 1 proceedings for the applicant to pay the respondent's costs arising after that date. However, the Court lacked sufficient familiarity with the issues, expert reports and additional costs incurred to fix a specified gross sum, so the costs were to be agreed or assessed rather than set as a gross amount.

Court Disposition

Respondent awarded costs from 14 November 2008 and costs of the notice of motion, as agreed or assessed; applicant's request for a specified gross sum was not accepted.

Orders

  • ["The applicant must pay the respondent's costs incurred from 14 November 2008 as agreed or assessed." "The applicant must pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion for costs as agreed or assessed." 'The exhibits may be returned.']