ANDREW DONNELLY & DAVID MUNDINE v. TENTERFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL (9 July 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 8

NSW Caselaw

Document text

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : ANDREW DONNELLY & DAVID MUNDINE v. TENTERFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL (9 July 1998) [1998] NSWLEC 8 Applicants: Andrew Donnelly & David Mundine PARTIES : First Respondent Tenterfield Shire Council Second Respondent Ross Mining NL Third Respondent Capricornia Prospecting Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S) : 40295 of 1997 CORAM: Talbot J KEY ISSUES: :- LEGISLATION CITED: Oshlack v Richmond River Council in the High Court (HCA 11 unreported 25 February 1998); CASES CITED: Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL & Ors (40222 of 1997 unreported 15 May 1998); Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment & Ors (NG 164 of 1997 unreported Federal Court of Australia 30 April 1998); in Oshlack v Richmond River Council & Anor (1994) 82 LGERA 236 at 245) DATES OF HEARING: 26 June 1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/09/1998

Applicants: Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: First Respondent Taylor Kelso Solicitors Second & Third Respondents Blake Dawson Waldron Solicitors

JUDGMENT: REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 2 June 1998 I delivered a judgment in favour of the respondents who had moved that substantial parts of the applicants' claim be dismissed or struck out. The respondents were wholly successful.

The second and third respondents claim their costs in relation to the notice of motion the subject of the judgment of the Court on 2 June 1998 on the basis of:-

1. The established practice of the Land and Environment Court that an unsuccessful applicant in class 4 proceedings should pay the respondent's costs.

Read full text →

Official source

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.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

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.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

Applicants: Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: First Respondent Taylor Kelso Solicitors Second & Third Respondents Blake Dawson Waldron Solicitors

JUDGMENT: REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 2 June 1998 I delivered a judgment in favour of the respondents who had moved that substantial parts of the applicants' claim be dismissed or struck out. The respondents were wholly successful.

The second and third respondents claim their costs in relation to the notice of motion the subject of the judgment of the Court on 2 June 1998 on the basis of:-

1. The established practice of the Land and Environment Court that an unsuccessful applicant in class 4 proceedings should pay the respondent's costs.

Read full text →