Sharples v Minister for Local Government (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 62

Sharples v Minister for Local Government (No 2) [2009] NSWLEC 62

The proceedings were public interest litigation, and the first limb raised novel and generally significant issues and resulted in a finding that the council materially misled the public, justifying no costs order for that limb under r 4.2. However, the applicant failed completely on the weaker second limb, and the Court was not persuaded to depart from the usual order that costs follow the event for that part. A broad apportionment was therefore required, with one third of the third respondent's costs payable by the applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings in Class 4 of the Court's Jurisdiction / Application for Costs by the Successful Third Respondent After Costs Were Reserved
Outcome
The third respondent's costs application was allowed in part, with costs apportioned.
Legal Topics
['public Interest Litigation' 'costs Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'local Government Rate Increases' 'ministerial Determinations Under S 508 a of the Local Government Act 1993']
['costs' 'administrative Law' 'local Government'] ['public Interest Litigation' 'costs Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'local Government Rate Increases' 'ministerial Determinations Under S 508 a of the Local Government Act 1993']

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

Judicial Review Proceedings in Class 4 of the Court's Jurisdiction / Application for Costs by the Successful Third Respondent After Costs Were Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings were brought in the public interest for the purposes of r 4.2(1) of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007.' 'Whether special circumstances or other factors justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event in class 4 proceedings.' "Whether costs should be apportioned between the first limb of the applicant's case, on which he established misleading conduct by the council but failed to invalidate the determinations, and the second limb, on which he failed completely."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were public interest litigation, and the first limb raised novel and generally significant issues and resulted in a finding that the council materially misled the public, justifying no costs order for that limb under r 4.2. However, the applicant failed completely on the weaker second limb, and the Court was not persuaded to depart from the usual order that costs follow the event for that part. A broad apportionment was therefore required, with one third of the third respondent's costs payable by the applicant.

Court Disposition

The third respondent's costs application was allowed in part, with costs apportioned.

Orders

  • ["The applicant is to pay one third of the third respondent's costs."]