Hofer v Howell Developments Pty Limited [No. 2] [2001] NSWLEC 42

Hofer v Howell Developments Pty Limited [No. 2] [2001] NSWLEC 42

The successful respondent is entitled to have its costs paid on a party and party basis, as there are no special or unusual circumstances warranting indemnity costs. The applicant's conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs, and the rejection of settlement offers, given the discretionary and contested nature of encroachment proceedings, was not unreasonable.

Parties
Applicant: Victoria Hofer; Respondent: Howell Developments Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Judgment / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Costs order made against applicant on party and party basis; no indemnity costs; no order as to costs of the costs hearing.
Legal Topics
Costs, Encroachment, Offers of Settlement, Heritage Buildings
Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Encroachment Offers of Settlement Heritage Buildings

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victoria Hofer

Applicant

Howell Developments Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Judgment / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the applicant under the Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922.
  2. 2 Whether there should be any order as to costs or if costs should follow the event in proceedings under this Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The successful respondent is entitled to have its costs paid on a party and party basis, as there are no special or unusual circumstances warranting indemnity costs. The applicant's conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs, and the rejection of settlement offers, given the discretionary and contested nature of encroachment proceedings, was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Costs order made against applicant on party and party basis; no indemnity costs; no order as to costs of the costs hearing.

Orders

  • The applicant must pay the respondent's costs (on a party and party basis), other than the costs related to the application for costs.
  • Otherwise there will be no order as to the costs of the application for costs.