Telstra Corporation Limited v Holroyd City Council [2006] NSWLEC 711

Telstra Corporation Limited v Holroyd City Council [2006] NSWLEC 711

It was not fair and reasonable to order costs against the Council. The relevant conduct was the Council's conduct in the s 97 appeal, not the separate s 82A review. In the appeal the Council was entitled to apply its interim telecommunications code, moved quickly to agree to consent orders after receiving Dr Black's preliminary report, and did not unreasonably delay concessions, continue despite poor prospects, or act irrationally. No unreasonable additional expense was shown in relation to visual impact, and the circumstances were unlike Raiti and Telstra v Hornsby.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Appeal Under S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Notice of Motion for Costs / Costs Application After Consent Orders Were Entered and the Appeal Was Upheld on the Basis of the Parties' Consent Orders
Outcome
The Applicant's Notice of Motion for costs was dismissed and the Applicant was not awarded its costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'consent Orders' 'development Application for Mobile Telecommunications Facility' 'electromagnetic Emissions Impacts' 'section 82 a Review' 'section 97 Appeal']
['planning and Environment Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['costs in Class 1 Proceedings' 'consent Orders' 'development Application for Mobile Telecommunications Facility' 'electromagnetic Emissions Impacts' 'section 82 a Review' 'section 97 Appeal']

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 Appeal Under S 97(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979; Notice of Motion for Costs / Costs Application After Consent Orders Were Entered and the Appeal Was Upheld on the Basis of the Parties' Consent Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable under Pt 16 r 4(2) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 1996 to order the Council to pay the Applicant's costs of the Class 1 proceedings and the costs motion." 'Whether the Council acted unreasonably by maintaining electromagnetic emissions and visual impact issues after Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133.' "Whether the Council's conduct in the s 82A review was relevant to the costs question in the s 97 appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was not fair and reasonable to order costs against the Council. The relevant conduct was the Council's conduct in the s 97 appeal, not the separate s 82A review. In the appeal the Council was entitled to apply its interim telecommunications code, moved quickly to agree to consent orders after receiving Dr Black's preliminary report, and did not unreasonably delay concessions, continue despite poor prospects, or act irrationally. No unreasonable additional expense was shown in relation to visual impact, and the circumstances were unlike Raiti and Telstra v Hornsby.

Court Disposition

The Applicant's Notice of Motion for costs was dismissed and the Applicant was not awarded its costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 23 August 2006 is dismissed." 'Exhibits may be returned.']