11 Jul 2022
The applicant failed to obtain the declarations sought because the Court rejected its narrow statutory interpretation and made no finding that the Service acted unlawfully; accordingly the respondent was the successful party and was entitled to costs on a 2B basis totaling $27,506.49.
31 May 2017
Because the applicant succeeded on one significant issue but failed on others and the second respondent abided the High Court process and played a minimal role, the parties had roughly even success; accordingly costs should lie where they fall and neither party is ordered to reimburse the Crown for the lawyer for the child under s135A(4).
25 May 2012
The certificate was set aside because the Council acted unlawfully/unreasonably by (1) failing to include all impermeable surfaces in its coverage calculation, (2) issuing the certificate without adequate information to select an appropriate Traffic Intensity Factor as required by the Plan, and (3) failing to verify whether a discharge-to-air consent was required instead of accepting an unsupported assertion; the matter must be reconsidered by the Council with adequate information.