Kringas v Cooma-Monaro Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 192

Kringas v Cooma-Monaro Shire Council [2000] NSWLEC 192

The applicant did not establish exceptional circumstances justifying a costs order. The council was entitled to raise, as its sole or principal issue, a question of law likely to be determinative of the appeal; the Court could not conclude that the legal argument before Cowdroy J was so untenable as to be exceptional; and the council's negotiations over conditions, preparation of the new local environmental plan, and omission of a savings clause were not exceptional in circumstances where its officer had advised that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the draft plan.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Costs in a Planning Appeal Under Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Costs Motion After the Subdivision Appeal Was Upheld and Development Consent Granted Subject to Conditions
Outcome
The notice of motion for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['costs in Planning Appeals' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'subdivision Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'question of Law Referred to a Judge']
['planning and Environment Law' 'costs' 'local Government'] ['costs in Planning Appeals' 'exceptional Circumstances' 'subdivision Consent' 'local Environmental Plan' 'question of Law Referred to a Judge']

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

Notice of Motion for Costs in a Planning Appeal Under Section 97 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Costs Motion After the Subdivision Appeal Was Upheld and Development Consent Granted Subject to Conditions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify a costs order against the council in a planning appeal.' "Whether the council's reliance on a question of law about permissibility under the new local environmental plan justified an order for costs." "Whether the council's conduct in negotiating consent conditions while a new local environmental plan was being prepared, and omitting a savings provision, amounted to exceptional circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish exceptional circumstances justifying a costs order. The council was entitled to raise, as its sole or principal issue, a question of law likely to be determinative of the appeal; the Court could not conclude that the legal argument before Cowdroy J was so untenable as to be exceptional; and the council's negotiations over conditions, preparation of the new local environmental plan, and omission of a savings clause were not exceptional in circumstances where its officer had advised that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the draft plan.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's notice of motion for costs is dismissed." 'The applicant must pay the costs of the notice of motion.']