Statewide Developments Pty Limited v Minister for Infrastructure and Planning [2005] NSWLEC 353

Statewide Developments Pty Limited v Minister for Infrastructure and Planning [2005] NSWLEC 353

It was fair and reasonable to order costs because the Minister was satisfied by 24 March 2005 that Statewide had fully complied with the emergency order and was on notice of significant holding costs, yet did not formally revoke the order under s 121ZG until 13 April 2005. The Minister's attempt to obtain undertakings about future compliance was separate from the order and did not justify maintaining an order with penal and commercial consequences. The delay was unreasonable and caused Statewide to incur legal costs that would not have been incurred had the order been promptly revoked.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Proceedings; Application for Costs / Costs Application Following Revocation of Emergency Order No.15
Outcome
Application for costs granted in favour of Statewide.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'emergency Order Under S 121 B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'revocation Under S 121 ZG of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'development Consent Compliance']
['environmental Planning Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'emergency Order Under S 121 B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'revocation Under S 121 ZG of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)' 'unreasonable Conduct' 'development Consent Compliance']

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; Application for Costs / Costs Application Following Revocation of Emergency Order No.15

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and reasonable under Pt 16 r 4(2) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 (NSW) to depart from the usual position of no costs order in Class 1 proceedings.' 'Whether the Minister acted unreasonably by delaying formal revocation of the s 121B order after being satisfied that Statewide had complied with it.' "Whether the Minister's pursuit of undertakings about future compliance with the development consent was relevant to the costs of the appeal against the order."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair and reasonable to order costs because the Minister was satisfied by 24 March 2005 that Statewide had fully complied with the emergency order and was on notice of significant holding costs, yet did not formally revoke the order under s 121ZG until 13 April 2005. The Minister's attempt to obtain undertakings about future compliance was separate from the order and did not justify maintaining an order with penal and commercial consequences. The delay was unreasonable and caused Statewide to incur legal costs that would not have been incurred had the order been promptly revoked.

Court Disposition

Application for costs granted in favour of Statewide.

Orders

  • ['The Minister pay the costs of Statewide in relation to these proceedings for the period 24 March 2005 to 13 April 2005.' 'The Minister pay the costs of Statewide in relation to this application for costs.']