Environment Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Limited (No 5) [2014] NSWLEC 184

Environment Protection Authority v Truegain Pty Limited (No 5) [2014] NSWLEC 184

The Court rejected the initially proffered bases for variation because r 36.16(3A) had not been supported by a filed notice of motion, r 36.15(2) permitted setting aside by consent but did not expressly permit variation, and r 18.2(2)(a) did not apply to Class 5 proceedings. Once Truegain filed a notice of motion and undertook to pay the filing fee, r 36.16(3A) was enlivened, enabling the Court to vary order 5 as requested and by consent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings; Costs Application / Application to Vary a Final Costs Order Made in the Sentence Decision
Outcome
Order 5 of the judgment of 14 November 2014 was varied.
Legal Topics
['variation of Final Costs Order' 'power to Vary Orders in Class 5 Proceedings' 'application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 in Land and Environment Court Proceedings']
['procedure' 'costs' 'criminal Proceedings'] ['variation of Final Costs Order' 'power to Vary Orders in Class 5 Proceedings' 'application of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 in Land and Environment Court Proceedings']

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 5 Criminal Proceedings; Costs Application / Application to Vary a Final Costs Order Made in the Sentence Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power to vary order 5 of the judgment of 14 November 2014 after judgment had been delivered in Class 5 criminal proceedings.' 'Whether r 36.16(3A), r 36.15(2), or r 18.2(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provided a basis to vary the final costs order.' "Whether the defendant's liability for the prosecutor's legal costs should be confined to costs incurred between 20 December 2013 and 22 October 2014 inclusive."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the initially proffered bases for variation because r 36.16(3A) had not been supported by a filed notice of motion, r 36.15(2) permitted setting aside by consent but did not expressly permit variation, and r 18.2(2)(a) did not apply to Class 5 proceedings. Once Truegain filed a notice of motion and undertook to pay the filing fee, r 36.16(3A) was enlivened, enabling the Court to vary order 5 as requested and by consent.

Court Disposition

Order 5 of the judgment of 14 November 2014 was varied.

Orders

  • ['Order 5 made on 14 November 2014 in Truegain (No 4) is varied to read, "the defendant is to pay the prosecutor\'s legal costs incurred between 20 December 2013 and 22 October 2014 (inclusive) as agreed or assessed".']