TL & TL Tradings Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 142

TL & TL Tradings Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2017] NSWLEC 142

The Applicant's costs application failed because the substantive proceedings produced, at highest, a mixed outcome for the Applicant. Although the Applicant obtained a further trial period, it was for two years rather than the three years sought and only after extensive and fundamental changes to the Plan of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Class 1 Costs Application in Proceedings Concerning Refusal of an Application to Modify a Development Consent for a Brothel / Notice of Motion for Costs After Substantive Merit Proceedings
Outcome
The Applicant's costs application was dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the costs application, with indemnity costs after expiry of the Calderbank offer.
Legal Topics
['class 1 Proceedings' 'development Consent Modification' 'plan of Management' 'brothel Use' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']
['costs' 'planning and Environment'] ['class 1 Proceedings' 'development Consent Modification' 'plan of Management' 'brothel Use' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']

Source-derived case record

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 in Proceedings Concerning Refusal of an Application to Modify a Development Consent for a Brothel / Notice of Motion for Costs After Substantive Merit Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and reasonable under Pt 3 r 7 of the Land and Environment Court Rules 2007 to order Parramatta City Council to pay TL & TL Tradings Pty Ltd's costs of the substantive Class 1 proceedings." 'Whether the Applicant could be regarded as having achieved the event or outcome sought in the substantive modification proceedings.' "Whether the Respondent's Calderbank offer justified an indemnity costs order for the costs application after expiry of the offer." 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the costs application after entry of the substantive orders was raised but not determined.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's costs application failed because the substantive proceedings produced, at highest, a mixed outcome for the Applicant. Although the Applicant obtained a further trial period, it was for two years rather than the three years sought and only after extensive and fundamental changes to the Plan of Management and acceptance of the Council's position on significant contested issues, including security arrangements. The approval was only possible by the Court adopting an amber light approach; absent that approach the application as originally advanced would have failed. Accordingly, the Applicant could not establish even a costs-follow-the-event foundation, and there was no...

Court Disposition

The Applicant's costs application was dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the costs application, with indemnity costs after expiry of the Calderbank offer.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's costs application is dismissed." "The Applicant is ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the Applicant's costs application up to the close of business on 6 September 2017 as agreed or assessed and on an indemnity basis thereafter." 'The exhibits are returned.']