Cassidy v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 246

Cassidy v Sydney Water Corporation (No 2) [2008] NSWLEC 246

The applicants were entitled to a costs order because they obtained materially more compensation than the Valuer-General's determination, Sydney Water's hearing position, and Sydney Water's offers of compromise; their initial high claims had little impact on the length or complexity of the proceedings; they did not fail on all major issues; and the change in valuation methodology did not warrant departure from an order that costs follow the event.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Costs Determination Following Principal Reasons on Compensation
Outcome
Applicants awarded compensation and costs; respondent ordered to pay the applicants' costs subject to a separate costs order.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land' 'whether Applicants Entitled to Usual Order as to Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'exaggerated Compensation Claims']
['land Acquisition' 'costs'] ['compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land' 'whether Applicants Entitled to Usual Order as to Costs' 'costs Following the Event' 'exaggerated Compensation Claims']

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

Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition of Land / Costs Determination Following Principal Reasons on Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there should be no order for costs, a capped costs order, or an order that the respondent pay the applicants' costs." "Whether the applicants' initial and continuing compensation claims were so exaggerated, or their conduct of issues so unsuccessful, as to justify departure from the usual costs order." 'Whether a realistic assessment of the litigation showed that Sydney Water succeeded and the applicants failed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to a costs order because they obtained materially more compensation than the Valuer-General's determination, Sydney Water's hearing position, and Sydney Water's offers of compromise; their initial high claims had little impact on the length or complexity of the proceedings; they did not fail on all major issues; and the change in valuation methodology did not warrant departure from an order that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Applicants awarded compensation and costs; respondent ordered to pay the applicants' costs subject to a separate costs order.

Orders

  • ['Determine that the applicants are entitled to compensation for the acquisition of part of lot 9 in deposited plan 258947 at Memorial Avenue, Kellyville (being the land in lot 1 in deposited plan 1087781) in the amount of $3,367,011.' "Subject to the separate costs order made on 20 November 2007, order the...