Zekic v Marrickville Council and Ors. [2005] NSWLEC 273

Zekic v Marrickville Council and Ors. [2005] NSWLEC 273

In view of the absence of any real or serious challenge to the validity of the relevant development consent and the voluntary participation of the second Respondents in the proceedings, the Applicant did not cause the second Respondents to necessarily and reasonably incur legal costs. Therefore, the presumptive entitlement to costs under Part 11 r 5 was displaced in the unusual circumstances of the case and no costs order is made in the discontinued proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Zekic; First Respondent: Marrickville Council; Second Respondent: Second Respondents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings / Costs Application on Discontinuance Without Consent
Outcome
Second Respondents' Notice of Motion for costs dismissed; no order as to costs in the discontinued proceedings.
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Proceedings, Costs Entitlement and Discretion, Development Consent Challenges
Administrative Law Planning and Environment Law Civil Procedure Discontinuance of Proceedings Costs Entitlement and Discretion Development Consent Challenges

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zekic

Applicant

Marrickville Council

First Respondent

Second Respondents

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings / Costs Application on Discontinuance Without Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second Respondents are entitled to costs following discontinuance of the proceedings by the Applicant under Part 11 r 5 of the Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether any circumstances exist to displace the presumptive entitlement to costs after discontinuance without consent

Ratio Decidendi

In view of the absence of any real or serious challenge to the validity of the relevant development consent and the voluntary participation of the second Respondents in the proceedings, the Applicant did not cause the second Respondents to necessarily and reasonably incur legal costs. Therefore, the presumptive entitlement to costs under Part 11 r 5 was displaced in the unusual circumstances of the case and no costs order is made in the discontinued proceedings.

Court Disposition

Second Respondents' Notice of Motion for costs dismissed; no order as to costs in the discontinued proceedings.

Orders

  • The second Respondents' Notice of Motion claiming costs be dismissed.
  • There be no costs orders made in these discontinued proceedings.