Bruyan, S v Hawkesbury City Council [2006] NSWLEC 51

Bruyan, S v Hawkesbury City Council [2006] NSWLEC 51

It was fair and reasonable for the council to recover its costs up to receipt of the amended Statement of Environmental Effects because, until then, the applicant had not provided sufficient information for the council to assess the s 96AA application, and that circumstance was generated by the applicant's neglect. After that date, the usual presumption of no order as to costs should prevail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Costs Application Concerning Proceedings to Modify a Development Consent Under S 96 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Notice of Motion by the Respondent Seeking an Order for Costs After Consent Orders Modifying the Development Consent
Outcome
Costs ordered in part for the respondent council.
Legal Topics
['development Consent Modification' 'class 1 Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'insufficient Supporting Information' 'building Envelope' 'effluent Disposal Restrictions']
['planning and Environment' 'costs'] ['development Consent Modification' 'class 1 Proceedings' 'costs Discretion' 'insufficient Supporting Information' 'building Envelope' 'effluent Disposal Restrictions']

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 Costs Application Concerning Proceedings to Modify a Development Consent Under S 96 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 / Notice of Motion by the Respondent Seeking an Order for Costs After Consent Orders Modifying the Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and reasonable to order costs in favour of the respondent council in Class 1 proceedings.' 'Whether the applicant failed to provide sufficient information with the s 96AA application to allow the council to assess the proposed modification before the amended Statement of Environmental Effects was lodged.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was fair and reasonable for the council to recover its costs up to receipt of the amended Statement of Environmental Effects because, until then, the applicant had not provided sufficient information for the council to assess the s 96AA application, and that circumstance was generated by the applicant's neglect. After that date, the usual presumption of no order as to costs should prevail.

Court Disposition

Costs ordered in part for the respondent council.

Orders

  • ["The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings to 2 November 2005 and that each party pay their own costs after that date."]