Wollondilly Shire Council v Anh Nhu Le and Ors [2004] NSWLEC 524

Wollondilly Shire Council v Anh Nhu Le and Ors [2004] NSWLEC 524

Although the consent orders did not grant declarations of invalidity or a simple demolition order, they achieved the substantive outcome sought by Council, and Council acted reasonably in commencing and settling proceedings after unsuccessful compliance attempts. Respondents' actions prior to proceedings were not reasonable, so Council is entitled to costs, except for costs on the amended application and costs hearing.

Parties
Applicant: Wollondilly Shire Council; First Respondent: Anh Nhu Le; Second Respondent: Thi Anh Le; Third Respondent: Thi Khanh Linh Nguyen; Fourth Respondent: Hoc Dinh Duong
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Costs Determination Post Settlement
Outcome
Costs granted partly in favour of applicant
Legal Topics
Costs, Unauthorised Structures, Building Certificates, Enforcement Orders
Environmental Law Planning Law Civil Procedure Costs Unauthorised Structures Building Certificates Enforcement Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wollondilly Shire Council

Applicant

Anh Nhu Le

First Respondent

Thi Anh Le

Second Respondent

Thi Khanh Linh Nguyen

Third Respondent

Hoc Dinh Duong

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 / Costs Determination Post Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings were reasonably commenced and settled
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs when proceedings settled by consent
  3. 3 Whether respondents acted reasonably in relation to compliance and settlement

Ratio Decidendi

Although the consent orders did not grant declarations of invalidity or a simple demolition order, they achieved the substantive outcome sought by Council, and Council acted reasonably in commencing and settling proceedings after unsuccessful compliance attempts. Respondents' actions prior to proceedings were not reasonable, so Council is entitled to costs, except for costs on the amended application and costs hearing.

Court Disposition

Costs granted partly in favour of applicant

Orders

  • Respondents are to pay the costs of the Applicant in relation to these proceedings, other than those costs relating to the amended Class 4 application filed by the Applicant on 30 June 2004 and the hearing on 17 September 2004.