NSW Caselaw
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales
CITATION : Canterbury City Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 536 APPLICANT: Canterbury City Council PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales FILE NUMBER(S) : (3)0150 of 2002 CORAM: Lloyd J KEY ISSUES: Costs :- unreasonable conduct - special circumstances - indemnity costs LEGISLATION CITED: Land and Environment Court Act 1979 s 69 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333; [1975] 3 WLR 586; Canterbury City Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWLEC 172; Canterbury City Council v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2002] NSWLEC 161; Degmam Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Wright (No. 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354; CASES CITED: Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397; Hofer v Howell (2001) 113 LGERA 391; LMI Australasia Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 74; MGICA (1992) Ltd v Kenny & Good Pty Ltd (No. 2) (1996) 70 FCR 236; Nobrega v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (No. 2) [1999] NSWCA 133 DATES OF HEARING: 03/08/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/29/2004
APPLICANT: Mr P C Tomasetti (barrister) SOLICITORS: Maddocks LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr J B Maston (barrister) SOLICITORS: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate