Land and Environment Court of New South Wales CITATION : Masterbuilt Pty Limited v Wingecarribee Shire Council [2004] NSWLEC 767 PARTIES : Masterbuilt Pty Ltd (Appl) Wingecarribee Shire Council (Resp) FILE NUMBER(S) : 11572 of 2003 CORAM: McClellan CJ KEY ISSUES: Costs :- Fair and reasonable costs Whether the costs incurred for two vacated hearing dates were unreasonable LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 1 December 2004 EX TEMPORE 12/01/2004 JUDGMENT DATE : D Baird (Appl) Maddocks (Sol - appl) D Wilson (Resp) B Bilinsky & Co (Sol - resp) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: JUDGMENT: THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES McCLELLAN J WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER 2004 11572/03 MASTERBUILT PTY LTD v WINGECARRIBEE SHIRE COUNCIL JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This matter came before me this morning on the Council's application for an order for costs in relation to these class one proceedings. That application was founded upon the fact that the matter had been fixed for hearing when an application was made to vacate the hearing date because of the negotiations which the applicant was having with the Council. It was expected that those negotiations would lead to a resolution of the matter without the necessity for a decision by the Court. 2 The application for adjournment was granted but the matter was fixed for a further hearing some weeks later. The applicant continued negotiations with the Council and ultimately sought again to have the hearing date vacated. That application was not immediately granted and it was necessary for the parties to appear before Justice Talbot on at least two occasions. 3 Ultimately, the hearing date was vacated shortly before the matter was due to commence and thereafter the Council resolved to approve the application. 4 In these circumstances, the Council submits that it would be fair and reasonable for it to be compensated for the costs which were unnecessarily incurred by having the matter fixed for hearing on two occasions and the hearing date was subsequently vacated. 5 In my opinion, the Council is not entitled to any order in relation to the first occasion upon which the proceedings were vacated. If that application had not been made or acceded to, it would have been necessary for the Council to defend its decision in a contested hearing. That is a cost which a council will usually bear in the ordinary course of class one proceedings. 6 However, when the matter was fixed on the second occasion, this was done at an early date in order to assist the applicant. In my opinion, because that second date was ultimately vacated again at the request of the applicant, it is fair and reasonable that the Council be compensated at least in a modest amount for the costs which it incurred, but which have ultimately been wasted. Those costs were incurred for the benefit of the applicant and an order is appropriate. It is also appropriate in the circumstances that the Council have an order for costs in relation to today's motion. 7 I have discussed with both parties the appropriate quantum of any order. Following those discussions it has been agreed that an order in the sum of $12,500 would be appropriate compensation for the Council in the circumstances. 8 Accordingly, I note that the parties have agreed in that sum and will make an order that in relation to the Council's costs of the class one proceedings including the costs of today's motion. 9 I order the applicant to pay the Council's costs determined in the sum of $12,500. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.